It's ok, its ok, you can get back on track. Just find the relation between reality's behavior and those maths functions over time, and you'll end up connecting those maths to the physics world. Just don't overwork yourself or you'll end up learning chemistry.
This is how mathematical physicists are born, they wanna do physics, but they're left unguided and start to deviate into the math realm and instead of doing GR and QM they go into differential geometry and functional analysis
I just want to say: To any undergraduate physics or astronomy students watching this video, don't worry if everything listed in this video is difficult for you. I graduated with a bachelors in astrophysics, and frankly I don't think I ever took a physics class that I thought was easy. It's okay if it's literally all hard! Physics is hard, but you can do it regardless!
If it is easy the teaching doesn't bring you forward at the fastest pace you can handle! If you see it that way the struggle might be more acceptable, if you just manage you know you don't waste your time on repeating stuff that's too easy for you. And there's so so much interesting stuff to study that is on the hard end of our current knowledge, so please hurry up and bring new light to some dark corner...
it's important to approach math like exercise. there is no innate ability. You just need to work very hard at it and you will be able to do it. I think too often a mathematical ability is portrayed as something you are born with. I'm an electrical engineer in my case I got really good at calculus because I worked my ass off on it staying up late, studying and crying and fighting for every little bit of new knowledge until I was a master - since I was a little teeniebopper.
Quick tip. You can basically find all textbooks in PDF form anywhere. I'm currently a grad student in physics and have basically relied solely on PDF versions of my textbooks this semester. I know a lot of faculty members who just have giant folders full of all the textbook PDFs
This, but the one thing I HATE about PDF's is that you're reading chapter 6.3 and then the text is "using equation 2.4 from chapter 2..." and then realizing you have to scroll 300 pages because they didn't re-write it and you don't know what they are talking about; it is a real pain in the ass. It is much easier to flip pages in a physical book. I usually get all mine used on AbeBooks website.
One great resource if you don't have access to faculty with giant folders of textbook PDFs is a site known as Library Genesis. Can't link here, for obvious reasons, but it is the first three letters of those two words, follow by [dot], followed by 'is'. That's actually an index; the files themselves are hosted in a full-encrypted distributed file share called IPFS.
I think we could go further, weirder and more useful, with applied courses on algebraic geometry and calculus. If the goal is to teach deep, fundamental tools and their practical uses, I think there’s a lot of value in going as general as possible in the theoretical tools, even though it bypasses the traditional build up of the underlying theory. Call it « mathematical tools and techniques »
@@emilejetzer7657 I feel like math education is still in a mode from before computer tools and information were so universal. I feel like people would be so much more motivated if math education was like "What do you want to do? here's what math you need to solve the problems to do that." Whereas it feels like math education is all about teaching you all the tools you need to know to solve any problem, before you get to use it to solve real problems in the world. But google exists now, I don't need to memorize every formula in order to solve my problems.
I have a PhD in physics. Before I went to the college, I found that I am able to follow the Feynman lectures (I did some calculus at the high school) but some other physics textbooks as well as the algebra and calculus books for students were above my reach without actually taking the courses. So learning physics on your own is a very hardcore activity.
You must be so dumb, unable to study all of these on your own. Students at TH-cam university will crush it, saving all the time and money you wasted! [Complete sarcasm, I agree with you 100%, and also have a PhD in physics. The phrase "self-study" really needs to be taken out of the general discourse of education.]
what sucks even more when it comes to physics is that finding a great list, that can promise ye all the physics from start to finish... I guess physics does have a lack of books that explains the topics in a well-structured and fully way. I looked up a lot of physics books, they either exaplin stuff too verbally (meaning that they don't maybe add enough mathematical processes to see that side of modern physics) or they fill up the book with too many off-topic jokes and references to music bands and political events etc. I don't know, matey, ...
Interesting to hear how things are done in different places. In Australia we did Calculus and introductory Physics in High School. I did a couple of years of a Applied Physics degree before dropping out to start an IT career. I still have my textbooks, I'll have to dig them out ... (I recall the HS text: PSSC Physics, and one of the UG texts was Sokolnikof (I think) and Redheffer, another was Apostle).
On practicing without computers: When I was getting my math bachelors, my real second analysis professor didn’t use a textbook, but instead made his course around a list of theorems he’d teach to build up calculus. In the course, we had received a numbered list of unnamed theorems. No one was able to easily look up the theorems to get the proof online, and as a result everyone in the class struggled through the theorems. It was a great class to learn in, and everyone who I knew that received at least a B could fluently push through proofs in other courses and elsewhere. People who took the other professors? Not so much, and a common problem was that they had thought they knew the proof but never had to discover the necessary arguments from tools they had up to that point. When you (the royal you) find the answers online and ‘cheat on the homework,’ you don’t train yourself to identify and tackle parts of the problem.
I think physicists in general really undervalue how useful and satisfying it is to able to write basic proofs. I only took a basic proof writing course. Not Advanced Calculus or anything crazy but I still think it helped me a lot. I can't prove anything too difficult like a full fledged mathematican would but I use things like proof by induction and proof by contradiction more often than you would think. In the grand scheme of things it probably wasn't strictly necessary but it scratched my itch to be more mathematically rigorous when I want to be. I definitely want to learn Real Analysis, Differential Geometry and other more advanced math topics at some point. Although I don't know when I'll find the time to learn these subjects.
Experiment gets a bad rep I think because I generally think the college curriculum for it is pretty bad and isn't representative of what it's like to be an experimentalist. Their all cookbook labs where all you do is follow a list of instructions from a lab manual. Maybe it's fine for simple labs like ones in physics I and physics II but for more advanced experiments it feels like you don't have time to understand what your doing or how the equipment works. You typically have only a few hours, unless you make an appointment to come back before the lab report due date with the Professor, so it feels like your constantly getting rushed out of the lab. I hate not having full access to the lab and being pressured to move at a certain pace. On top of the time constraints you usually work with lab partners whether you want to or not. This usually ends up in one or two of the lab partners understanding what their doing quicker and doing the whole experiment while the other partners watch on the sidelines in confusion or not knowing what they can do to help. I get that your an undergrad still, so they don't trust you and don't want to spend the money to give every student a solo lab experience, but I feel like this experience doesn't tell me at all if I would enjoy experimental work. The one thing the reports tell me is I like the data and error analysis side to it but not necessarily working in a lab and devising my own experiments. To be honest I am also naturally better at theory and not good working with my hands. So that would be a contributing factor as well but typical lab courses make it difficult for me to grow out of that and try to become a more well rounded physicist.
I wish we gave a bajillion dollars a year to experimental physicists, and experimental scientists in general. First, it's just fun to build things and think about them and plan them out. Second, it's totally different to see something and have a thing to poke and prod. Plus, sometimes the math works out but there might be some small thing that was overlooked or deemed unimportant but in reality it's actually really important to consider and that pushes knowledge forward. Like, I watched a video about Bose-Einstein condesents, and I still don't really know what that is, but it was amazing to listen to the scientist talk about this huge apparatus she built with her team. And she showed how it worked and how she figured out if you calibrate the laser system just right the light can actually "steal away" energy to make the little cloud even colder. Like, it's as close to absolute zero as we can get right now. How cool is that! I don't know what will come out of this experiment, but I don't care, it's neat and will lead to more cool stuff. I mean, I don't think we're all going to get little ultra cold clouds of matter to carry around with us or here in the world, but just knowing what happens to matter in that state will impact us somehow, somewhere, and at some time.
As a math grad student, I can recommend some good math books: 1. Linear algebra: Axler's book is the best of the best. But you will need some more computational stuff also, but you'll do that a whole tone through physics anyways, so I wouldn't be too worried. The point is to understand how it actually work and be comfortable with the theory. 2. ODEs: Arnold's book is the golden standard. While it is a msth book and there is plenty rigor there, it is very accessible for a phydicist too. Not only is this a good ODE book, it is one of the best math books for undergrad topics. Get the MIT edition, not the Springer one. 3. PDE: now this is difficult to recommend. I will be blunt, PDEs become "accessible" and interesting only through proper rigorous and detailed study. It is kind of how QM requires very serious study through functional analysis to really understand and undergraduate QM is usually pretty bad. This might require more maturity, comfort with geometry and analysis, but I recommend Evans. This is where PDEs become beautiful and interesting. 4. Functional analysis: this is big boy linear algebra. I actually don't think you need measure theory to understand most of introductory graduate functional analysis. Peter Lax's book is amazing and goes far, while also being very soft on the prerequisites. If you want to be super thorough, you would want to do a semester of functional analysis before PDEs. Functional analysis is also crucial for QM, because pure linear algebra techniques are not sufficient. 5. Differential geometry: stick to Lee's trilogy of books. These are thorough, transaprent, well written and very self contained. For mathematicians I would recommend other books, but for physics students who want to be strong in math, these books are the best. Also, ODE's make even more sense when you understand basic differential geoemtry. It is all about flows of vector fields on manifolds.
@@user-to2wn9ry7y I can't really speak on difficulty, because it is all subjective and any serious piece of math will be difficult at some point. Also, it all depends on your interests. Functional analysis srems like a great setting for a lot of juicy algebra through von Neumann algebras, but also the field of math that helps one with PDEs the most. That is because in PDEs you can study spaces of functions (or distributions) and when we add some regularity, these can become Banach spaces or Hilbert spaces. These are called Sobolev spaces and those are the rich function spaces we care about. Then one can do say spectral analysis on your operator that defines your PDE and you can get good info about your PDE using functional analysis. Some people also really want to study functional analysis itself. If linear algebra was your favorite, you might fall into that camp too.
As a math grad student, you basically just said you wasted your time and money being in college for a math degree. Or, more realistically, people can pretend they'll learn on their own and understand the material, and in the end they really just wasted *their* time.
@@UnconventionalReasoning I'm having trouble interpreting this comment; are you saying that trying to self-learn math at the graduate level is a waste of time or that trying to self-learn any math above the high school level is a waste of time? As a matter of fact, what do you mean by "waste of time"? Are you saying that people stand to gain nothing that'll materially help them by doing so (in which case I'd argue that depends on the self-learner's profession), or (more likely) are you saying that people can't really reach a meaningful understanding of mathematics by just reading textbooks and doing the exercises by themselves? (in which case i'd like to know why you think this since I really don't see a reason for why that would be true)
0:00 - Textbooks 14:55 - Finding textbooks 21:10 - Convincing you not to buy those books 28:07 - 6 random problems 28:50 - Landau/Lifshitz theoretical minimum 32:00 - A terrible idea 33:05 - Top five tips 1. 33:19 - Schedule 2. 37:07 - Supplies 3. 38:37 - Lab component 4. 45:16 - Daily physics brain 5. 49:03 - Talk to other people about physics
I can’t do the talking part. It puts the physics in episodic memory which is the wrong place to store it. Especially if I don’t completely understand it yet. I’m autistic and talking to other people inflames my amygdala.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 Talking isn't required to understand physics. As a physicist friend of mine often says: you understood it when you can calculate it.
@@Volkbrecht that's a poor mindset to have, sure just being able to calculate it gets the job done but that doesn't mean that you truly understand the concepts behind the calculations. Talking is a huge part of exploring and establishing your thoughts, you don't even need to talk with other people just talking aloud to yourself (or a plant or literally anything) is better than not talking at all. Though it should be noted that collaborating with other people to help build your thoughts is an amazing tool because they can provide more perspectives that may shift your way of thinking and even correct some of the concepts you may not have a solid understanding of. If the basis of understanding lies in calculations, then calculators "understand" many topics more than we ever will and that simply isn't true, they can't teach us squat really (computers maybe but that's if you're using them in place of books or articles which come from people so that doesn't really stand).
@@raindawnson9254 If you want to get serious about science it's actually the best mindset to have. I used to try and visualize physics exercises as a chemistry undergrad. Problem is, at some point you run out of fingers, and at the point where physics get "silly", also out of dimensions that your brain can make sense of. So the first step in understanding a problem is to "translate" it into its mathematical form, then derive your insights from there. Equations and graphs is also how experts in adjoining fields will "talk" to you professionally. And it's the best for all parties involved if you train yourself to understand that. It's even expected if you want to earn your salary in a multi-disciplinary environment.
@@raindawnson9254 I talk about it in my head if it counts. I come up with random metaphors for everything that would make no sense for me to talk about. Also in my autistic state any talking goes into episodic memory which is a poor place to retrieve math data from. For me it’s a form of... well for an autistic all socialization is trauma on some level. I want to make sure I understand it 100% before I even begin talking about it or I could lock some half-formed egregiously wrong concept - or even just the feeling of confusion regarding the concept akin to repeatedly forgetting right and left - into episodic memory where it will be poison and difficult to unremember and replace with correct semantic memories.
There is at least one book that can help you develop a physics brain without a full lab. Hands on Physics Activities with Real-Life Applications by Cunningham and Herr is intended for middle school and high school teachers, but it covers every basic branch of physics. Basically every page describes a demo you can do on basically no budget and it has typical questions a teacher can give students.
One resource that I, (an obligate novice who flunked high school math) have been really enjoying as an intro is a lecture series that Caltech has available on their youtube channel, called THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE that was filmed in 1985. I think it was meant to accompany a correspondance course or something, but its 52 parts, half an hour each, and if you are someone who struggles with the motivation or executive function to pick up a book and make yourself do homework every week, these are a great way to dip a toe into the pool. I`ve been watching one every saturday morning for a few months now, taking notes about the physics and identifying the gaps in my math, so I can then go back and figure out which Khan Academy math videos I need to review. And the 80`s aesthetics of the whole thing are just *chefs kiss*. So that`s something that is free and available right now!
We had Goodstein’s Mechanical Universe series on VHS when I was an undergrad. We would roll the TV cart into the TA office and watch. Great recommendation.
OMG! I used to watch The Mechanical Universe on PBS when I was a little kid and it was my favorite show! I even have the ridiculously expensive DVDs that Annenberg/CPB released.
The section of this video titled "labs" is the best part. If you can physically make something to play with that will cement the ideas in your mind better than any textbook problem. I had a graduate course on mechatronics in college and the take home midterm involved a problem where it asked us to optimize the number of LEDs so the maximum amount of light could be produced given a voltage source. As it happens I had decided to make an array of LED lights for my bike helmet a few months before. It only took me 45 minutes to do the test and I definitely got an A on it.
In summary: - buy one book, spend a year with it (you'll be spending many years with many books, but take it step by step) - let physics take over your brain; you won't learn unless you're constantly thinking about it - have a test bank, redo problems periodically - experience physics physically; a stupid-sounding analogy may be the thing that keeps you from drowning in a sea of abstract equations (and quitting physics) - talk with other serious physics students - college courses are good actually; steal books or maybe even take one
Except this quantum joke is just sooo overused.. We dont know if anything is simultaneously anything, only that the result is clear when the example function collapses.
the analogy of the ball being connected to the earth with a spring undergoing SHM is fascinating. It gives a whole new wonderful prospective to the ball's motion.
Fun Fact: Jackson was able to buy a house from the money he made writing " Classical Electrodynamics". It is not a house I would not want to visit as it almost certainly haunted by the ghosts of students who failed their Jackson based EM classes. The second edition is much better than the third. A very nice book is "Principles of Electrodynamics" by Melvin Schwartz. It is on a level between Jackson and Griffith. I like his approach where he starts the discussion on magnetism by first showing it must exist using special relativity and electricity, or more generally showing how the two fields are united by special relativity. I am reading now "Physics of Binary Star Evolution" by Tauris and van den Heuvel which was published only just a few months ago. Covers everything from how we get stellar masses from binary stars, to how they produce gravitational waves. It is a really nice book.
You are right. I would add - as I used to say to my students - read everything, and I mean everything, with both a genuinely open mind and critical thinking. Admittedly a hard call, but it can really reap benefits.
I'm starting my engineering professor job in a few weeks and needed textbooks for my shelf. Absolutely perfect timing for me! (I promise I will read them)
I loathe Boas. But I also had an AMAZING math professor. He created his own course called "Linearity", which was diff-eq, linear algebra, and Calc 3, all in one. He made his notes the textbook, and they were excellent. Funny, readable, great examples. We were constantly laughing in his classes. And he was so precise. It made Boas seem sloppy, opaque, and confusing in comparison. I was always confused that so many physics professors loved it so much.
@@expendedAmmunitionI totally agree. I still keep Boas on my desk for reference when I need to code up a solution to a problem, but I remember it being super dense and unfun to learn from.
The Dirac book is not a bunch of compiled papers! It's a legit book, and in fact an amazing book that most graduate QM texts have cribbed a lot from! It's not outdated in the least and very clear. Not necessarily for beginners though. He also wrote a great GR book which is ridiculously short (I believe under 80 pages). It just gets straight to the point.
At 36m, I feel like this is the most underrated part of getting an education in anything, though I think physics especially tends to do a good job of teaching intellectual humility. Knowing how to be wrong about stuff and being mentally tough enough to keep going are the two things I brought along from my physics BS that help me the most in my everyday job. So glad you brought this up, as I feel like most education tends to focus much more on the performative aspect of taking tests and proving knowledge (which is important), but it doesn’t insist on learning how to be wrong first.
This is such a good video. I realized that you had already gone through all your book recommendations for undergrad and graduate courses but there was still 40 minutes left in the video. I also noticed you hadn’t left a 20 item long list of books in the description. Anyway, thanks for giving us concrete, realistic, actionable steps for “teaching ourselves” physics. The next time someone tells me they want to learn piano or whatever (I’m a musician) I could just point them to this video. Apparently it’s very similar learning physics and music. You have to learn the basics, practice the material (physically when possible, not just theoretically), and become part of a community.
Extremely helpful video, thank you. I just want to add something I've learned over decades in my "field" (computer science) - there is SO.MUCH.CRAP out there it's extremely hard to find books worth buying (and I do love having physical books over digital versions). Considering how expensive books are, I usually recommend to people to first go to Library Genesis, "preview" the book and then buy it. .
Completely agree. CompSci is full of jack of all trades, underdeveloped Math understanding, trend of the month, do it yourself in few hours/minutes, just type anything, methodologies that nobody use ever and some theoretical books that mostly oversimplify the Maths and overstate the problems. oh, and they tell you they know Turing stuff but for some reason not Gödel theorems. If you are lucky. Because the books I mentioned above are real books. Then you have the bigger bunch of books that are basically with the rigor and level of a popular newspaper talking about some scandal by a celebrity. That’s CompSci books.
I'm really happy I found your channel last year -- I've seen every video you've made since. As a grad student in a slightly different field, I love hearing you share your perspective with the same casual tone that I would discuss stuff with friends in my research group. It's a cool window into another field, and a great way to spend an hour while I work on something easy or commute to school. Just wanted to say I appreciate you and your work. Thanks for taking the time to do this :)
Hey there. I've taught DiffEq and my favorite books are Blanchard, Devaney and Hall "Differential Equations" which covers the ODEs. And if you need PDEs, then use Farlow's "Partial Differential Equations for Scientists and Engineers."
@@highviewbarbell No sorry I haven't looked at that one. But I find there are 2 ways that linear algebra books can be written... there's the pure math version that combines it with functional analysis which could be sort of like what your desrcibing. Those are okay but I find most students like the applied math version that doesn't have probability spaces and hilbert spaces and other stuff they might not need. Of course, i teach math to engineers which is different than what a physics student probably needs. :) Hope this helps.
@@DataRae-AIEngineer I've actually dual declared for Engineering Physics and Mathematics so I'll have to learn them both from several angles eventually, I suppose!
You can also look at the websites of professors. They often have their own lecture notes for free on there. And some of them are great to learn a specific topic
Loved your Top 5 tips as a way to not just get thru Physics, but more broadly to approach learning... Not every job or lifestyle requires an academic background, but nearly every good one requires the ability to rigorously apply yourself, and you nailed the approach.
Though to people who want to start running, March 15th is just about the perfect date to start your year in most places. If you're just starting out, don't rush for January. Running in January is awful. You can wait for your custom shoes. Also don't get custom shoes. That would be weird.
Had to retake Physics II twice in college (math major). I wish I had this video back then 😭😭 Maybe I should revisit physics without the pressure, might like it a bit more.
I think the main detriment to me actually learning physics in undergrad was the fact that I didn't use it at all for my microbiology major and yet it was imperative that I cram it into my packed schedule and get a good grade in it. If you're not already inclined towards physics I can't conceive of a worse way to learn the material than to make it a required class you have to get a 70% in to graduate when you have no plans to ever do it again afterwards.
@@gee8419 Oh absolutely. I did not give it the time or attention it needed what with all the other classes I had, I ended up taking it with a different prof. during an 8wk in the summer when I could focus on only that. Did just fine 👍
Your line about not knowing enough math hits hard, I've quit my physics degree after actually passing all calculus classes with mediocre grades and having to face stuff like Classical Mechanics and Electrodynamics later without having any solid math foundation, the worst part was that I couldn't go back to the classes which I had performed poorly, so even today I'm still trying to self teach me math, from algebra up.
Same-- got a D in electronics lab, mainly because I couldn't remember how to solve differential equations and couldn't re-learn fast enough in a 10 week quarter.
Checkout Prof Leonard's channel, he has lectures from pre Algebra all the way to Differential equations eventhough his Differential equations course has not been completed yet. I learnt pre calc, calc 1 and using his lectrure videos. I am currently learning calc 3 from him.
I agree, fully working through an entire calc based introductory physics text, especially with modern, would give most people a solid understanding that could even be useful in day to day life.
Linear algebra on year 3? That's very surprising to me as a math person. If someone how to get into math I'd say to do calculus and linear algebra first - and I'd say that learning linear algebra is more important than learning calculus (MUCH more important depending on what area of math you want to specialize in)
the thing which will use it the most is quantum mechanics, so it's okay to leave it for later if the focus is just the physics, but yeah, sounds unusual
That's true, but where I live in Colorado, if you do 2 years in community college first, then transfer to complete an undergraduate degree, you can't even take linear algebra until year 3. Or at least you can't use financial aid towards it since they don't require it for the AS.
Same. Undergrad degree is in math and I did linear algebra in my third semester. They might not need it until later though and if you take something in year 1-2 that you’ll need in year 3-4 that kind of puts an unnecessary gap between the two.
Also, what self respecting calc 3 course isn't teaching you div/curl/grad? Is it just me who's utterly perplexed by this? When she mentioned vector analysis I half expected her to hold up Spivak.
Honestly, the best thing to help keep up the science brain is friends. Someone to bring/share you problems to you so that way you don't exhaust all your self motivation. And someone to keep you doing problems, learning, and accountable.
I originally intented to do physics but there was too many maths units so I just did chemistry instead. Then at some point in my PhD I had to learn differential equations and I had no idea how to start. I literally fell asleep trying to read the undergrad books on the subject. Then I went to asking my Physics and Maths PhD friends to try to teach me... that went better. But even then my PhD examiners were annoyed I massively simplified the mathematics to make the point I wanted to make in my Thesis. I was a chemist doing chemical engineering related work, navier stokes stuff. I did at least 3 units on Thermodynamics! you telling me that isn't a thing now D:
Oh . . . the thoughts about picking up studies again at my age. Quite the challenge, but tempting. I took physics in college and may have even gotten an A the first semester, but that was 40 years ago. Struggled bigly with the more advanced courses though.
I think differential equations as a subject has a way that its been taught that hasn’t changed for centuries. There’s a good article by Gian-Carlo Rota wherein he states that when he was assigned to teach an undergrad differential equations class he went back and found that the order and presentation of the material in the current textbooks were exactly the same as they were in textbooks by Cauchy and George Boole. But for my money, ‘Differential Equations with Applications and Historical Notes’ by George Simmons is the textbook i found most helpful.
My diffEQ textbook in school was made by our professor so I’m guessing he agreed with you on diffEQ textbooks. My best understanding came from the adjunct professor who taught my systems, dynamics, and controls class.
Not sure about the US but in the UK as a member of the public you can get access to university libraries so if you live somewhere with a university join up and see which books suit you before buying.
1. Thank you for sharing the bouncy ball story, on both personal and theoretical levels. 2. There is no mention of Zee’s books! This is a noteworthy exclusion.
I love your suggestion to use multipule sources/texts while learning something. I actually did exactly what you suggested during my undergrad and I read the Feynman lectures in paralell with my normal courses and I thought it was absolutley excellent for that. I heisitate to reccomend the Feynman lectures as one's sole resource (I think they are fine especially if you are doing the practice problems) but they are absolutley fantastic as supplimental material. Side note, in my edition of the Feynman lectures in hard copy there is a foreward by the man himself saying that he himself wasn't happy with how the third modern physics section turned out. But I found the second book on electromagnetism very helpful.
Wow this was a great video. I did a bachelors in physics and mathematics, then studied engineering. I really miss the physics. It takes a huge amount of focus and energy to master multiple topics in physics, but it can be quite satisfying. Brolliant advice. I can’t recall many of the equations for SHM or kinematics or the wave function (psi?) but think I might be able to derive them in a few minutes. I still do calculus in my head to help me fall asleep sometimes, or derive trig identities. I really want to give my children the influences they need to be confident enough to tackle physics at varsity if they want to. This has been quite inspirational. I’ve always wanted to know something about QED. I’ve also forgotten a lot of math after 15 years of LIFE getting in the way. I’ll follow your advice and dig out my old “fundamentals of physics” text by Halliday Resnic and Walker and work the problems again :) Many thanks for putting this together. I’ll likely refer back to it. So great to have an overview of the important books (I remember some of the Griffiths ones fondly). Only problem is knowing few people who are in my current circle who know anything about physics. Perhaps it’s time to engage people on the subject!
I adore David Griffiths Introduction to Electrodynamics. Not only is the subject matter interesting, but it is so well written that it's almost as engaging as a novel.
I also recommend Julius Summner Millers old videos. He has a great energy and talks about a ton of phenomena in a very short amount of time. So it's a great way to find tiny physics problems to think about and describe mathematically. Always use interesting things you want to understand as opportunities to learn physics. For years i was very interested in understanding climate science and what really advanced my knowledge was to not be satisfied with qualitative answers. You should only be satiesfied once you know how to actually calculate something yourself. So with regards to climate science you might want to know how you chould approach calculating the amount of warming we get by doubling the CO2 concentration. That will teach you a lot of physics - a lot more physics then just being happy with a qualitative answer. Qualitative answers often just give you the illusion of understanding something. They often don't give you the full picture. Climate science also led me to the Navier Stokes Equations and computer simulations via the finite difference method. Also very interesting. That's how they are able to model wind patterns so accurately in climate models. It's really fascinating.
Ty for making this. I'm undergrad physics rn, just got done with physics foundation, like right before modern physics. I really enjoyed learning about electric current and inductance and waves and lenses this last semester it was so much more fun than pulleys and throwing balls and weights. Anyways, it's nice to get a better idea of what lies ahead of me and success tips from a source that seems so earnest and knowledgeable. I'm really looking forward to modern physics.
This book may be a little before your time, as it was a little before my time 30 years ago, but I really liked Elementary Differential Equations by Boyce & DiPrima. I used my father's copy (from 60 years ago) as a backup to the textbook assigned by my prof, and felt that the explanations were actually better than the more modern text.
I can highly recommend Boyce and DiPrima. It is the textbook I used 60 years ago at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. I can also recommend as a basic physics book Resnick and Halliday. Robert Resnick was my physics teacher back in the late sixties. I think the book is now in its 10th edition.
I just graduated from BioMedical sci, and i used to study a level physics and loved it. I am trying to rekindle that passion and trying to self-learn physics and math from scratch again. This video helps alot on where to start! thank you so much for motivating me
The Dirac book is actually by Paul Dirac. He kept updating it until late in his life. Contrary to most other older textbooks on quantum mechanics, Dirac's book is still very accessible, and it feels modern because he uses his "Dirac" notation (BTW, John Von Neuman, in the preface of his book, totally has a hissy fit over the Dirac delta function; worth a read!).
Just found your chanel, I am working slowly towards going back to school for physics, with an ultimate goal of teaching physics, this video is a good place for me to start
For ADVANCED ELECTRODYNAMICS i recommend "A Modern Introduction to Classical Electrodynamics" by Michele Maggiore, it's a modern version of Landau, but more accessible!!
I wish so much I followed my brain and went into physics rather than IT in college. Now I'm 40 with an active career and just looking overwhelmed at the idea of reading all of these books on my own, in addition of work and hobbies. The biggest challenge now will be to pick only one of your books and read it in a year or two.
Awesome Video! Computer Science Student here(Graduated 2 years ago), Sometimes I get the urge to just start over in probably physics or core maths.. I've done Calculus, Linear Algebra etc And this doesn't just happen for physics, it happens for Biology & Chemistry(Probably because high school was shiit). I also currently work as a software engineer. Might get a 5 year study plan to go through these. Cheers.. Happy New year
Thanks for going through all these textbooks. I am 63 years old and still find subjects interesting even though I have never "done" them. I am impressed with myself that I have heard of Feynman...LOL. Have a wonderful day - 6 months later.
Just google pdf versions, don't buy textbooks. Even better, you can find lecture note pdfs by famous lecturers/courses from famous universities, which are sometimes at least as good as actual textbooks.
I taught myself calculus & physics before I attended university & became an engineer, the high school I was at, wasn’t doing enough to suit my needs so I had to do it on my own. But either way, it worked out. Unfortunately the individual is the best teacher is self, no amount of external instruction will have the same impact.
If you're interested in quantum physics I, I highly recommend the MIT lectures (free on MITs open courseware or on youtube) by Allan Adams (and sometimes Barton Zwiebach): Really well done and easy to follow with excellent lecture notes.
@@1eV Barton's lectures are also very good, but have a more mathematical bent. I find Adams's lectures more approachable if this is your first quantum physics class. In all, they are both very good. Personally I watched Zwiebach's lectures after Adams'; Had I started with Zwiebach I think I would have been a little more confused. All in all, they are both excellent.
Some of their lecture notes are hand written! Can’t read! I study the material from the classes that are way harder than I am credentially qualified to take.
I'm surprised I haven't seen a recommendation for Chabay and Sherwood's Matter and Interactions in your video or in the comments. It's a much more modern approach to teaching physics which integrates a good deal of 20th century understanding into its discussion of classical mechanics and electrodynamics. It also teaches some basic computational modelling, which is essential to every branch of physics today.
21:18 I think this is a very specifically american thing (to get a bunch of stuff and then return it or sell it back in a garage sale) because my 3rd world country brain can't get around getting a bunch of preparatory hardware before doing a thing... I typically had to start with bad - usually detrimental - equipment and if I did well or felt I was getting better I could get better equipment (some examples: Guitars, swimming goggles). For something as broad as physics a guideline of your favorites makes absolute sense. Thanks for the lagrangian/hamiltonian recs!
"Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill It's on the level of Jackson without the sharp edges. The selection of examples and problems are very physics-oriented.
LOVE the Dover books!!! Yeah, they’re dry and dated, but maybe it’s because my favorite math prof was a big fan and used them as textbooks way back in the day. Also, big shout out to Shankar. LOVE his books (his sense of humor totally resonates, adding an element of entertainment to what can be an otherwise stale discussion). His big, red QM book is an absolute favorite. Regarding GR, Wald’s book has long been a favorite. Bonus…it can be downloaded as a PDF, no cost.
BTW, here in Minnesota, Half Price Books can be a gold mine. It’s weird, but a lot of these obscure texts are often on the shelf. I’ve come across some AMAZING finds at used book stores, especially when in a college town.
The freshman physics course that I took had extremely strict homework format requirements and we were literally graded down for not drawing some kind of picture for every single problem. Honestly, forming the habits of drawing SOME kind of picture every time and having to explain, in words, why I was doing the math I was doing did so much for my learning. Later on, when I worked grading for that same class, forcing the students to do that made it so much easier for me, as a grader, to figure out what the students had done wrong and write down "You thought X, but X is incorrect and here's why Y instead." It really was a wonderful system for students who really wanted to make sure that they were learning the material completely. I never did anything with physics, and I've lost most of it over the years, but I genuinely cannot recommend enough the rigor of drawing a picture every time and explaining in words why you did the math you did. Made studying for exams a BREEZE as well, because my homework functioned as a complete study guide, annotated in MY OWN WORDS after being forced to spend a couple hours thinking about it, rather than studying from the wording the professor used that I scribbled down while half paying attention because it was an hour before lunch.
I never drew the pictures correctly but I somehow got one of the few A’s in the class. I’m autistic and my math comprehension is very nonverbal. That honestly sounds like some common core BS. The fact that you forgot most of your physics speaks for itself.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 Well, considering that I haven't done any math let alone physics in over a decade, it's not surprising that I'm rusty. If you have a disability which needs accommodating for a particular class style, that's why accessibility offices exist. That doesn't change the value of setting up a class to incentivize students to actually think through the problems and be able to communicate their thought process, both of which are skills that are very useful if they are ever going to, say, write a thesis.
@@lerualnaej5917 When you’re autistic you don’t forget stuff so easily. I can describe my thought process but it would sound schizophrenic because of all the metaphors I use internally as mnemonics or whatever. Also explaining a theory for a doctoral dissertation is different from explaining why I used this or that value in this or that equation. I might even end up confusing myself and brainwashing myself with the wrong words. Also the disability offices aren’t sufficiently accommodating. I need to be allowed to skip as many classes as I want (attending class and the excess socialization that entails stupefies me with anxiety and if I have to attend class every day for a couple of weeks I start behaving like a bipolar person) and turn in homework as late as I want (focusing on deadlines makes it not consolidate into long term memory properly) or better yet just grade me on the test but they have to dumb classes down in every way that makes it more accommodating to neurotypicals and less accommodating to autistics and there is only so far they will allow you to go if the class has mandatory attendance for a grade or homework for a grade. I have had to sacrifice my attendance grade to save my essay grade, or my homework grade to save my test grade (I did the homework I just refused to turn it in because I cannot do homework with the intention of turning it in without stressing my amygdala out so much it fails to form enough long-term memory of the math material, I have to do the homework just to learn it with no intention of turning it in and hopefully get it done before the deadline on accident and then suddenly change my mind about turning it in last-minute but I don’t think that will usually happen unless I set a timer and somehow completely forget that the timer exists)
I’m so glad the internet was in it’s infancy when I was in school. It existed, but barely, and not helpfully for solving problems. Also, Angela, your advice of just getting used to feeling stupid when you first start a problem is dead on. I’ve been saying that for years. Studying for the qualifier was an exercise in starting every problem completely stumped and then realizing that I eventually usually get there. The training to some extent was becoming accustomed to setting that strong-as-fuck feeling aside and getting to work anyway. (PhD ‘01)
Good advice all around here. For anyone that wants a calculus-based rather than an algebra-based approach to that broad introductory-level text, "Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday, Resnick, and Walker is a standard text universities use to teach their calculus-based freshmen-level physics courses.
There is no such thing as a calculus based freshmen level math course. I took one and I literally remembered everything from high school and I didn’t even get to take AP in high school. The calculus involved is so superficial you don’t need to understand it at all. Honestly they should just wait until you know enough math to understand calculus of variations before giving you any physics courses.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 I agree that the calculus is fairly superficial at that level. I've seen many introductory physics students struggle more with the algebra than the calculus.
Back in 2015 I did Landau-Lifshitz classical mechanics, writing down all exercises as Wildberger would. Admittedly, I only did this for 2 chapters before I gave up on the idea. But at least I can now reflect on it ten years later in a youtube comment.
My differential equations class used “Fundamentals of Differential Equations” by Nagle, Saff and Snider. I didn’t think it was that bad. It was 15 years ago though.
Angela: As a retired AP physics teacher who has gone back to grad school to chase a physics PhD purely for pleasure, I can honestly say that your approach to physics education and learning dwarfs that of most professors and teachers! You have a very realistic and pragmatic view that I wish could be heard by every physics student…. regardless of their stage in life! Thanks for this incredibly thoughtful summary of the topic. You have wisdom and perspective of physics educators twice your age! Keep up the great work!
Saw your video on crackpots the other day. That subject always reminds me of Jair Bolsonaro's late guru. He was a junior-high dropout who wanted to be recognized as a philosopher, but in fact he was an astrologist and a columnist. He was vocally opposed to Einstein's relativity and stated the geocentric claim was as valid as the heliocentric claim (or any other model where the Earth is not in the center) because the only difference was, according to him, the frame of reference. He wanted to roll back science to the Aristotelian model, because he was a TradCath (Earth in the center as proof of man's importance in God's creation, plus Thomas Aquinas' neo-Aristotelianism). He also said there was no fossil fuel because hydrocarbonates were also found in another galaxy [EDIT: where there's never been a dinosaur - yes, he said that]. And he believed Pepsi was made with aborted foetus as sweetener. And then he died because he didn't believe smoking caused cancer and that COVID was real. But while he was alive, he got to influence a president, albeit a very stupid one.
The frame of reference thing is technically true. I interned under an old physics PhD who said Newton could have saved himself a lot of trouble by saying "hey these calculations are a lot easier if we just *pretend* the sun is at 0,0,0 in this wacky temporary coordinate system"
@@PeterStinklage But in this case, it's geocentrism. How would you explain the motion of other bodies in the solar system through geocentrism? You'd have to say the sun goes around Earth and everything else goes around the sun that goes around the Earth. For a TradCath, that undermines Earth's importance, as everybody else in the sky is cuckolding her with the sun. It's not geocentrism anymore, but outsourced heliocentrism.
@@crisoliveira2644 yes I suppose you can't get around the idea that the conceptual center is fake. Bolsonaro's guy seems to have admitted that, but If I wanted to mollify the Church in the old days I would say that if the Earth and Sun were connected by a bar, and the Sun to the remaining planets, you're free to declare Earth the "mover" of the bar just as an athlete is the "mover" of a pull-up bar. They won't understand the details anyway, and you can say that this is better than accusing God of making the purest Heavens engage in tempestuous behavior
Thanks for posting this, I get these kind of questions from people quite often as well. I am 100% with you at 2:50-3:00 when you say (paraphrase) everytime you hold your old UG calc book you feel the urge to teach yourself math.
I think it just comes with practice and familiarity, but yeah that might be a neat video idea! I bet there are a lot of little tricks and shit that people [like me] who don't spend a ton of time reading research papers for work would probably never think of
Dirac definitely wrote a book called "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics", but it was in the 1930s. Probably not a good choice if you're just trying to learn quantum mechanics.
I think your advice is genuine n honest .Pls continue doing these videos you will surely inspire many people. You are talking from your life experience, I can feel it.thanks.
You tube?? I thought i have covered all physicist youtuber....but here she is doing what i was looking for. Thank you for your vital information. Im undergrad student of physics. Want to be a theoretical physicist.
I'm 15 and I plan to read every popular science book I see and study mathematics and physics for three years and then major in physics in college. Tell me what you think
Try your hand at _The Theoretical Minimum_ by Susskind & friends. It occupies this perfect niche between a textbook and a popular science book, which doesn't exist in the same way even in other fields. Do the exercises!
The Principles of Quantum Mechanics is written by P.A.M. Dirac and it is a real textbook (not a collection of papers staples together by someone else.) It is my personal favorite introductory QM textbook and I highly recommend it.
Could you please make a video on the various symbols used in physics equations, there’s Greek symbols and then there’s others like the limit and sum symbols, etc. This would be immensely valuable, having an introductory explanation of each symbol that I can refer back to.
I think part of the reason why I was turned off from a lot of physics and maths was because of the symbols even when they tell you what they mean, I ended up in computer science but using an analogy from computer science, sometimes they seem more like entire objects than variables. Some of these symbols and variables are not just representing a number or unit system, but often are a lot more complex (and I don't just mean literally like i ), they could be entire arrays of vectors and matrix's ! Many simple symbols can be entire concepts wrapped in a function!
I did physics in my freshman year of college, in 1988 in Australia. I still got my Serway in a closet somewhere. That’s how truely universal that textbook is.
Some background. I have a BA in Chemistry with a Physics minor, so my qualifications are way less than our good doctor who gave us this video. When this video came out, I saw all the textbook recommendations and while I agree that there are very good reasons these are standard texts to teach, it is overwhelming. Now in watching the whole thing I see how I should have watched more. Back when I was in school we used Serway for Sophomore Modern Physics, and I liked how he explained things enough that I grabbed a review copy of the Freshman book you recommended. I have used it enough that I definitely would recommend it over the Freshman book I used as a Freshman. That said, it is Halliday, Resnick and Walker that I used basically being a TA for a summer class that sits on my bookshelf. Everything that you recommended in this video is good. Do problems. Talk with others doing problems. Talk with a someone who has the patience to direct you through this. My first Physics professor hammered into us that in so many ways Physics is simple but not easy. One of the hardest parts is to remember or recognize that simplicity when things get, uh, interesting.
I graduated in 2008 with a Physics degree unfortunately couldn't find a job so I started working construction now I own the company and I have not done any math except for calculating some angles and the amount of volume it requires to fill holes with concrete LOL I would love to get back into it and your videos are definitely motivating me to
I don’t know who this A. Mazon and this E. Bay are, I get my books through this archive my friend Anna has, or this library my cousin Genevieve works at.
I was actually discussing my needs with Genevieve while watching the video; she was able to assist immediately. Thank you for introducing me to Anna, we were not previously acquainted ...
I would agree, although, in 1983-1984 my first year Physics text was "The Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday and Resnick. In the 1990's there were a lot of calls for textbook reform that fell on deaf ears. It seems to happen about every twenty years or so. Eugen Merzbacher gave a speech on it that appeared in the American Journal of Physics while at the same time another professor stated that students were not properly trained for advanced work in Physics in the same AJP issue. Joseph Agassi noted in "Einstein vs Bohr" by Mendel Sachs that what made a good academic student was not what made a good research physicist. Over the years and decades, I've come to agree with David Hestenes regarding "Physics as Modeling." I now regard the disputes about textbooks as a less important sub issue because many professors and physicists have pointed out that students have been playing the wrong game all along and have not been trained to be physicists nor taught physics in high school that was directly applicable to their lives. Dr. Roger Schank, PhD is an education reformer that majored in math but was a major influencer and professor in A.I. that tells high school students straight out that physics as it's been taught for a long time is useless. And then it's interesting to note that another advocate of education reform, Sugata Mitra, that was teaching computer science was a physics graduate. Now, IBM Watson and chatGPT can play Physics Trivial Pursuit better than most students. One has to be an expert to detect chatGPT's hallucinations. It looks like the arguing over letting calculators into physics classes over slide rules. My grade 11 Physics teacher actually made us use slide rules in the early 1980's. We used no programmable calculators in first year University so I liked seeing the calculator come out in this video with a comment on how old it was.
I love this video! Of course, it's awesome to see such an honest and thorough guide to learning physics for those new to the field, but also because it reminded me that these big complicated concepts are things I can learn, even on my own!
I don't have a ODEs textbook to recommend but I do have a PDE textbook to recommend. Introduction to Partial Differential Equations by Peter J. Olver published by Spring is a really nice book. I really learned how to think about math working through this book. I used this book to teach myself PDEs before going into work everyday for like 4 months in 2018. It is an undergraduate text. I would add that if you're interesting is a specific topic in physical go to the relevant engineering field and start working through those books. They will fill out the space of the topic with application. They are also a little slower at the undergrad level. An Example would be the Sophomore Mechanical Engineering sequence: Statics, Dynamics, and Strength and Material. This will also dump you at the door of Taylor's Classical Mechanics.
Directions unclear, taught myself math
It's ok, its ok, you can get back on track. Just find the relation between reality's behavior and those maths functions over time, and you'll end up connecting those maths to the physics world.
Just don't overwork yourself or you'll end up learning chemistry.
Congrats, that means you already know half of physics.
@@Vegedow Yes, good points. Whatever you do, DO NOT APPLY THE PHYSICS THAT YOU LEARN.
That would be gross and impure :)
That's better
This is how mathematical physicists are born, they wanna do physics, but they're left unguided and start to deviate into the math realm and instead of doing GR and QM they go into differential geometry and functional analysis
I just want to say: To any undergraduate physics or astronomy students watching this video, don't worry if everything listed in this video is difficult for you. I graduated with a bachelors in astrophysics, and frankly I don't think I ever took a physics class that I thought was easy. It's okay if it's literally all hard! Physics is hard, but you can do it regardless!
First semester is definitely too easy.
Thanks for that
If it is easy the teaching doesn't bring you forward at the fastest pace you can handle! If you see it that way the struggle might be more acceptable, if you just manage you know you don't waste your time on repeating stuff that's too easy for you. And there's so so much interesting stuff to study that is on the hard end of our current knowledge, so please hurry up and bring new light to some dark corner...
I don't think I genuinely understood most of what I learned until about a year after I finished the class.
it's important to approach math like exercise. there is no innate ability. You just need to work very hard at it and you will be able to do it. I think too often a mathematical ability is portrayed as something you are born with. I'm an electrical engineer in my case I got really good at calculus because I worked my ass off on it staying up late, studying and crying and fighting for every little bit of new knowledge until I was a master - since I was a little teeniebopper.
Quick tip. You can basically find all textbooks in PDF form anywhere. I'm currently a grad student in physics and have basically relied solely on PDF versions of my textbooks this semester. I know a lot of faculty members who just have giant folders full of all the textbook PDFs
This, but the one thing I HATE about PDF's is that you're reading chapter 6.3 and then the text is "using equation 2.4 from chapter 2..." and then realizing you have to scroll 300 pages because they didn't re-write it and you don't know what they are talking about; it is a real pain in the ass. It is much easier to flip pages in a physical book. I usually get all mine used on AbeBooks website.
One great resource if you don't have access to faculty with giant folders of textbook PDFs is a site known as Library Genesis. Can't link here, for obvious reasons, but it is the first three letters of those two words, follow by [dot], followed by 'is'. That's actually an index; the files themselves are hosted in a full-encrypted distributed file share called IPFS.
Lmao as an undergrad who has giant folders full of textbook PDFs this makes me feel better
Library Z is still alive and kicking on the dark webs. It's pretty reliable and fast like its now banned clearnet site. Worth a google!
Same. I only read PDFs. Costs nothing
I honestly think that we should teach linear algebra in high school, it's at least as important as calculus, especially in physics
I think we could go further, weirder and more useful, with applied courses on algebraic geometry and calculus. If the goal is to teach deep, fundamental tools and their practical uses, I think there’s a lot of value in going as general as possible in the theoretical tools, even though it bypasses the traditional build up of the underlying theory. Call it « mathematical tools and techniques »
Wait, you guys don't learn linear algebra in high school?
linear algebra is probably a lot more important than calculus, in general.
@@emilejetzer7657 I feel like math education is still in a mode from before computer tools and information were so universal. I feel like people would be so much more motivated if math education was like "What do you want to do? here's what math you need to solve the problems to do that." Whereas it feels like math education is all about teaching you all the tools you need to know to solve any problem, before you get to use it to solve real problems in the world. But google exists now, I don't need to memorize every formula in order to solve my problems.
Linear algebra is also way more important to people who don't end up specializing in math/physics than calculus is.
I have a PhD in physics. Before I went to the college, I found that I am able to follow the Feynman lectures (I did some calculus at the high school) but some other physics textbooks as well as the algebra and calculus books for students were above my reach without actually taking the courses. So learning physics on your own is a very hardcore activity.
You must be so dumb, unable to study all of these on your own. Students at TH-cam university will crush it, saving all the time and money you wasted!
[Complete sarcasm, I agree with you 100%, and also have a PhD in physics. The phrase "self-study" really needs to be taken out of the general discourse of education.]
what sucks even more when it comes to physics is that finding a great list, that can promise ye all the physics from start to finish... I guess physics does have a lack of books that explains the topics in a well-structured and fully way. I looked up a lot of physics books, they either exaplin stuff too verbally (meaning that they don't maybe add enough mathematical processes to see that side of modern physics) or they fill up the book with too many off-topic jokes and references to music bands and political events etc. I don't know, matey, ...
@@Dave.Mustaine.Is.Genius Clearly you need to write the perfect physics textbook!
Interesting to hear how things are done in different places. In Australia we did Calculus and introductory Physics in High School. I did a couple of years of a Applied Physics degree before dropping out to start an IT career. I still have my textbooks, I'll have to dig them out ... (I recall the HS text: PSSC Physics, and one of the UG texts was Sokolnikof (I think) and Redheffer, another was Apostle).
@@AndrewBlucher In the US we also take calc anb phys in HS...She is exclusively talking about college/uni level courses.
On practicing without computers: When I was getting my math bachelors, my real second analysis professor didn’t use a textbook, but instead made his course around a list of theorems he’d teach to build up calculus. In the course, we had received a numbered list of unnamed theorems. No one was able to easily look up the theorems to get the proof online, and as a result everyone in the class struggled through the theorems. It was a great class to learn in, and everyone who I knew that received at least a B could fluently push through proofs in other courses and elsewhere.
People who took the other professors? Not so much, and a common problem was that they had thought they knew the proof but never had to discover the necessary arguments from tools they had up to that point.
When you (the royal you) find the answers online and ‘cheat on the homework,’ you don’t train yourself to identify and tackle parts of the problem.
I think physicists in general really undervalue how useful and satisfying it is to able to write basic proofs. I only took a basic proof writing course. Not Advanced Calculus or anything crazy but I still think it helped me a lot. I can't prove anything too difficult like a full fledged mathematican would but I use things like proof by induction and proof by contradiction more often than you would think. In the grand scheme of things it probably wasn't strictly necessary but it scratched my itch to be more mathematically rigorous when I want to be. I definitely want to learn Real Analysis, Differential Geometry and other more advanced math topics at some point. Although I don't know when I'll find the time to learn these subjects.
Experimentalist here. I love hearing theorists who believe in the importance of lab work for building understanding. Bravo.
Experiment gets a bad rep I think because I generally think the college curriculum for it is pretty bad and isn't representative of what it's like to be an experimentalist. Their all cookbook labs where all you do is follow a list of instructions from a lab manual. Maybe it's fine for simple labs like ones in physics I and physics II but for more advanced experiments it feels like you don't have time to understand what your doing or how the equipment works. You typically have only a few hours, unless you make an appointment to come back before the lab report due date with the Professor, so it feels like your constantly getting rushed out of the lab. I hate not having full access to the lab and being pressured to move at a certain pace. On top of the time constraints you usually work with lab partners whether you want to or not. This usually ends up in one or two of the lab partners understanding what their doing quicker and doing the whole experiment while the other partners watch on the sidelines in confusion or not knowing what they can do to help. I get that your an undergrad still, so they don't trust you and don't want to spend the money to give every student a solo lab experience, but I feel like this experience doesn't tell me at all if I would enjoy experimental work. The one thing the reports tell me is I like the data and error analysis side to it but not necessarily working in a lab and devising my own experiments.
To be honest I am also naturally better at theory and not good working with my hands. So that would be a contributing factor as well but typical lab courses make it difficult for me to grow out of that and try to become a more well rounded physicist.
I wish we gave a bajillion dollars a year to experimental physicists, and experimental scientists in general. First, it's just fun to build things and think about them and plan them out. Second, it's totally different to see something and have a thing to poke and prod. Plus, sometimes the math works out but there might be some small thing that was overlooked or deemed unimportant but in reality it's actually really important to consider and that pushes knowledge forward. Like, I watched a video about Bose-Einstein condesents, and I still don't really know what that is, but it was amazing to listen to the scientist talk about this huge apparatus she built with her team. And she showed how it worked and how she figured out if you calibrate the laser system just right the light can actually "steal away" energy to make the little cloud even colder. Like, it's as close to absolute zero as we can get right now. How cool is that! I don't know what will come out of this experiment, but I don't care, it's neat and will lead to more cool stuff. I mean, I don't think we're all going to get little ultra cold clouds of matter to carry around with us or here in the world, but just knowing what happens to matter in that state will impact us somehow, somewhere, and at some time.
As a math grad student, I can recommend some good math books:
1. Linear algebra: Axler's book is the best of the best. But you will need some more computational stuff also, but you'll do that a whole tone through physics anyways, so I wouldn't be too worried. The point is to understand how it actually work and be comfortable with the theory.
2. ODEs: Arnold's book is the golden standard. While it is a msth book and there is plenty rigor there, it is very accessible for a phydicist too. Not only is this a good ODE book, it is one of the best math books for undergrad topics. Get the MIT edition, not the Springer one.
3. PDE: now this is difficult to recommend. I will be blunt, PDEs become "accessible" and interesting only through proper rigorous and detailed study. It is kind of how QM requires very serious study through functional analysis to really understand and undergraduate QM is usually pretty bad. This might require more maturity, comfort with geometry and analysis, but I recommend Evans. This is where PDEs become beautiful and interesting.
4. Functional analysis: this is big boy linear algebra. I actually don't think you need measure theory to understand most of introductory graduate functional analysis. Peter Lax's book is amazing and goes far, while also being very soft on the prerequisites. If you want to be super thorough, you would want to do a semester of functional analysis before PDEs. Functional analysis is also crucial for QM, because pure linear algebra techniques are not sufficient.
5. Differential geometry: stick to Lee's trilogy of books. These are thorough, transaprent, well written and very self contained. For mathematicians I would recommend other books, but for physics students who want to be strong in math, these books are the best. Also, ODE's make even more sense when you understand basic differential geoemtry. It is all about flows of vector fields on manifolds.
would add manfredo as a differential geometry textbook if y'all wanna do general relativity
@@user-to2wn9ry7y I can't really speak on difficulty, because it is all subjective and any serious piece of math will be difficult at some point.
Also, it all depends on your interests. Functional analysis srems like a great setting for a lot of juicy algebra through von Neumann algebras, but also the field of math that helps one with PDEs the most. That is because in PDEs you can study spaces of functions (or distributions) and when we add some regularity, these can become Banach spaces or Hilbert spaces. These are called Sobolev spaces and those are the rich function spaces we care about. Then one can do say spectral analysis on your operator that defines your PDE and you can get good info about your PDE using functional analysis.
Some people also really want to study functional analysis itself. If linear algebra was your favorite, you might fall into that camp too.
Phenomenal comment.
As a math grad student, you basically just said you wasted your time and money being in college for a math degree. Or, more realistically, people can pretend they'll learn on their own and understand the material, and in the end they really just wasted *their* time.
@@UnconventionalReasoning I'm having trouble interpreting this comment; are you saying that trying to self-learn math at the graduate level is a waste of time or that trying to self-learn any math above the high school level is a waste of time? As a matter of fact, what do you mean by "waste of time"? Are you saying that people stand to gain nothing that'll materially help them by doing so (in which case I'd argue that depends on the self-learner's profession), or (more likely) are you saying that people can't really reach a meaningful understanding of mathematics by just reading textbooks and doing the exercises by themselves? (in which case i'd like to know why you think this since I really don't see a reason for why that would be true)
0:00 - Textbooks
14:55 - Finding textbooks
21:10 - Convincing you not to buy those books
28:07 - 6 random problems
28:50 - Landau/Lifshitz theoretical minimum
32:00 - A terrible idea
33:05 - Top five tips
1. 33:19 - Schedule
2. 37:07 - Supplies
3. 38:37 - Lab component
4. 45:16 - Daily physics brain
5. 49:03 - Talk to other people about physics
I can’t do the talking part. It puts the physics in episodic memory which is the wrong place to store it. Especially if I don’t completely understand it yet. I’m autistic and talking to other people inflames my amygdala.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 Talking isn't required to understand physics. As a physicist friend of mine often says: you understood it when you can calculate it.
@@Volkbrecht that's a poor mindset to have, sure just being able to calculate it gets the job done but that doesn't mean that you truly understand the concepts behind the calculations. Talking is a huge part of exploring and establishing your thoughts, you don't even need to talk with other people just talking aloud to yourself (or a plant or literally anything) is better than not talking at all. Though it should be noted that collaborating with other people to help build your thoughts is an amazing tool because they can provide more perspectives that may shift your way of thinking and even correct some of the concepts you may not have a solid understanding of. If the basis of understanding lies in calculations, then calculators "understand" many topics more than we ever will and that simply isn't true, they can't teach us squat really (computers maybe but that's if you're using them in place of books or articles which come from people so that doesn't really stand).
@@raindawnson9254 If you want to get serious about science it's actually the best mindset to have. I used to try and visualize physics exercises as a chemistry undergrad. Problem is, at some point you run out of fingers, and at the point where physics get "silly", also out of dimensions that your brain can make sense of. So the first step in understanding a problem is to "translate" it into its mathematical form, then derive your insights from there.
Equations and graphs is also how experts in adjoining fields will "talk" to you professionally. And it's the best for all parties involved if you train yourself to understand that. It's even expected if you want to earn your salary in a multi-disciplinary environment.
@@raindawnson9254 I talk about it in my head if it counts. I come up with random metaphors for everything that would make no sense for me to talk about.
Also in my autistic state any talking goes into episodic memory which is a poor place to retrieve math data from. For me it’s a form of... well for an autistic all socialization is trauma on some level. I want to make sure I understand it 100% before I even begin talking about it or I could lock some half-formed egregiously wrong concept - or even just the feeling of confusion regarding the concept akin to repeatedly forgetting right and left - into episodic memory where it will be poison and difficult to unremember and replace with correct semantic memories.
There is at least one book that can help you develop a physics brain without a full lab. Hands on Physics Activities with Real-Life Applications by Cunningham and Herr is intended for middle school and high school teachers, but it covers every basic branch of physics. Basically every page describes a demo you can do on basically no budget and it has typical questions a teacher can give students.
Love referencing AP/IB high school texts for an eli5/beginner friendly reference
A lab is entirely unnecessary to develop a physics brain. A full lab can even be counterproductive.
One resource that I, (an obligate novice who flunked high school math) have been really enjoying as an intro is a lecture series that Caltech has available on their youtube channel, called THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE that was filmed in 1985. I think it was meant to accompany a correspondance course or something, but its 52 parts, half an hour each, and if you are someone who struggles with the motivation or executive function to pick up a book and make yourself do homework every week, these are a great way to dip a toe into the pool. I`ve been watching one every saturday morning for a few months now, taking notes about the physics and identifying the gaps in my math, so I can then go back and figure out which Khan Academy math videos I need to review. And the 80`s aesthetics of the whole thing are just *chefs kiss*. So that`s something that is free and available right now!
th-cam.com/play/PL8_xPU5epJddRABXqJ5h5G0dk-XGtA5cZ.html
I got you beat I failed Math for Idiots Three times
We had Goodstein’s Mechanical Universe series on VHS when I was an undergrad. We would roll the TV cart into the TA office and watch. Great recommendation.
OMG! I used to watch The Mechanical Universe on PBS when I was a little kid and it was my favorite show! I even have the ridiculously expensive DVDs that Annenberg/CPB released.
I can’t do videos. For executive function I just need a distant professor to threaten me with bad grades for not studying.
The section of this video titled "labs" is the best part. If you can physically make something to play with that will cement the ideas in your mind better than any textbook problem. I had a graduate course on mechatronics in college and the take home midterm involved a problem where it asked us to optimize the number of LEDs so the maximum amount of light could be produced given a voltage source. As it happens I had decided to make an array of LED lights for my bike helmet a few months before. It only took me 45 minutes to do the test and I definitely got an A on it.
In summary:
- buy one book, spend a year with it (you'll be spending many years with many books, but take it step by step)
- let physics take over your brain; you won't learn unless you're constantly thinking about it
- have a test bank, redo problems periodically
- experience physics physically; a stupid-sounding analogy may be the thing that keeps you from drowning in a sea of abstract equations (and quitting physics)
- talk with other serious physics students
- college courses are good actually; steal books or maybe even take one
The idea that a quantum mechanics book simultaneously _will and won't_ help seems oddly appropriate 😆👌
Except this quantum joke is just sooo overused.. We dont know if anything is simultaneously anything, only that the result is clear when the example function collapses.
@@georgelionon9050It is simultaneously every possibility. Nothing is deterministic
So is a bad joke potentially funny until it's heard 🤔😃?
@@philurbaniak1811 Look, I wont say its bad, but its got quite a beard by now. A joke everyone heard at last a dozen times.. every month.
@@georgelionon9050 this guy gets it. thank god someone does!
the analogy of the ball being connected to the earth with a spring undergoing SHM is fascinating. It gives a whole new wonderful prospective to the ball's motion.
Fun Fact: Jackson was able to buy a house from the money he made writing " Classical Electrodynamics". It is not a house I would not want to visit as it almost certainly haunted by the ghosts of students who failed their Jackson based EM classes. The second edition is much better than the third.
A very nice book is "Principles of Electrodynamics" by Melvin Schwartz. It is on a level between Jackson and Griffith. I like his approach where he starts the discussion on magnetism by first showing it must exist using special relativity and electricity, or more generally showing how the two fields are united by special relativity.
I am reading now "Physics of Binary Star Evolution" by Tauris and van den Heuvel which was published only just a few months ago. Covers everything from how we get stellar masses from binary stars, to how they produce gravitational waves. It is a really nice book.
Schwartz book is published by Dover so it is cheap
second edition still has Gaussian units doesn't it? what makes is better than 3rd
@@nullor That is what makes the 2nd better than the third. Heaviside-Lorentz units are mostly useful for string theory - a huge, pathetic dead end.
Huge respect to people who are making channels that teach . TH-cam can be a gold mine for people who want to learn .
You are right. I would add - as I used to say to my students - read everything, and I mean everything, with both a genuinely open mind and critical thinking. Admittedly a hard call, but it can really reap benefits.
But it can also trick you into learning
I'm starting my engineering professor job in a few weeks and needed textbooks for my shelf. Absolutely perfect timing for me! (I promise I will read them)
🤣🤣
I loathe Boas. But I also had an AMAZING math professor. He created his own course called "Linearity", which was diff-eq, linear algebra, and Calc 3, all in one. He made his notes the textbook, and they were excellent. Funny, readable, great examples. We were constantly laughing in his classes. And he was so precise. It made Boas seem sloppy, opaque, and confusing in comparison. I was always confused that so many physics professors loved it so much.
it's not that Boas is particularly good. it's that she's so much better than A LOT of stuff out there.
Ok, now I want your teacher's notes as a book 📚
@@expendedAmmunitionI totally agree. I still keep Boas on my desk for reference when I need to code up a solution to a problem, but I remember it being super dense and unfun to learn from.
Gotta share the teacher, in case he's still teaching or is willing to share syllabus/notes!
Share the the notes. For science.
The Dirac book is not a bunch of compiled papers! It's a legit book, and in fact an amazing book that most graduate QM texts have cribbed a lot from! It's not outdated in the least and very clear. Not necessarily for beginners though.
He also wrote a great GR book which is ridiculously short (I believe under 80 pages). It just gets straight to the point.
For beginners?
@@MR-backupHell no
@@MR-backup Beginners maybe not. But it's a good book.
😆@@1eV
👍
At 36m, I feel like this is the most underrated part of getting an education in anything, though I think physics especially tends to do a good job of teaching intellectual humility. Knowing how to be wrong about stuff and being mentally tough enough to keep going are the two things I brought along from my physics BS that help me the most in my everyday job. So glad you brought this up, as I feel like most education tends to focus much more on the performative aspect of taking tests and proving knowledge (which is important), but it doesn’t insist on learning how to be wrong first.
This is such a good video. I realized that you had already gone through all your book recommendations for undergrad and graduate courses but there was still 40 minutes left in the video. I also noticed you hadn’t left a 20 item long list of books in the description.
Anyway, thanks for giving us concrete, realistic, actionable steps for “teaching ourselves” physics. The next time someone tells me they want to learn piano or whatever (I’m a musician) I could just point them to this video. Apparently it’s very similar learning physics and music. You have to learn the basics, practice the material (physically when possible, not just theoretically), and become part of a community.
Extremely helpful video, thank you. I just want to add something I've learned over decades in my "field" (computer science) - there is SO.MUCH.CRAP out there it's extremely hard to find books worth buying (and I do love having physical books over digital versions). Considering how expensive books are, I usually recommend to people to first go to Library Genesis, "preview" the book and then buy it. .
People are better off trying free OpenStax books to work on problems then try other content if needed
Completely agree. CompSci is full of jack of all trades, underdeveloped Math understanding, trend of the month, do it yourself in few hours/minutes, just type anything, methodologies that nobody use ever and some theoretical books that mostly oversimplify the Maths and overstate the problems. oh, and they tell you they know Turing stuff but for some reason not Gödel theorems.
If you are lucky.
Because the books I mentioned above are real books.
Then you have the bigger bunch of books that are basically with the rigor and level of a popular newspaper talking about some scandal by a celebrity.
That’s CompSci books.
I'm really happy I found your channel last year -- I've seen every video you've made since. As a grad student in a slightly different field, I love hearing you share your perspective with the same casual tone that I would discuss stuff with friends in my research group. It's a cool window into another field, and a great way to spend an hour while I work on something easy or commute to school. Just wanted to say I appreciate you and your work. Thanks for taking the time to do this :)
delightful comment!
Hey there. I've taught DiffEq and my favorite books are Blanchard, Devaney and Hall "Differential Equations" which covers the ODEs. And if you need PDEs, then use Farlow's "Partial Differential Equations for Scientists and Engineers."
Have you ever had a look at Strang's combined textbook on DiffEQ and Linear Algebra? I'm curious if it's any good
@@highviewbarbell No sorry I haven't looked at that one. But I find there are 2 ways that linear algebra books can be written... there's the pure math version that combines it with functional analysis which could be sort of like what your desrcibing. Those are okay but I find most students like the applied math version that doesn't have probability spaces and hilbert spaces and other stuff they might not need. Of course, i teach math to engineers which is different than what a physics student probably needs. :) Hope this helps.
@@DataRae-AIEngineer I've actually dual declared for Engineering Physics and Mathematics so I'll have to learn them both from several angles eventually, I suppose!
I like BDH, too. Also, Braun is fun to read for diff eq. For PDEs, Gockenbach has a nice book geared toward engineers.
@20:10 very good and practical advice to know which textbooks are worth buying. Thank you.
You can also look at the websites of professors. They often have their own lecture notes for free on there. And some of them are great to learn a specific topic
Loved your Top 5 tips as a way to not just get thru Physics, but more broadly to approach learning... Not every job or lifestyle requires an academic background, but nearly every good one requires the ability to rigorously apply yourself, and you nailed the approach.
Though to people who want to start running, March 15th is just about the perfect date to start your year in most places. If you're just starting out, don't rush for January. Running in January is awful. You can wait for your custom shoes. Also don't get custom shoes. That would be weird.
Had to retake Physics II twice in college (math major). I wish I had this video back then 😭😭
Maybe I should revisit physics without the pressure, might like it a bit more.
I think the main detriment to me actually learning physics in undergrad was the fact that I didn't use it at all for my microbiology major and yet it was imperative that I cram it into my packed schedule and get a good grade in it. If you're not already inclined towards physics I can't conceive of a worse way to learn the material than to make it a required class you have to get a 70% in to graduate when you have no plans to ever do it again afterwards.
@@gee8419 Oh absolutely. I did not give it the time or attention it needed what with all the other classes I had, I ended up taking it with a different prof. during an 8wk in the summer when I could focus on only that. Did just fine 👍
I would teach myself and insist on skipping straight to upper division electricity and magnetism. Lower division classes are a waste of time.
@@gee8419I can’t do it if I’m forced to attend class for a grade. I’m autistic and I need to stay at home in order to learn it.
Your line about not knowing enough math hits hard, I've quit my physics degree after actually passing all calculus classes with mediocre grades and having to face stuff like Classical Mechanics and Electrodynamics later without having any solid math foundation, the worst part was that I couldn't go back to the classes which I had performed poorly, so even today I'm still trying to self teach me math, from algebra up.
I did that (passing with mediocre grades) and took a few years off before going back, it really is painful
Same-- got a D in electronics lab, mainly because I couldn't remember how to solve differential equations and couldn't re-learn fast enough in a 10 week quarter.
I’ve taught myself a lot and I’m going to bully my college into letting me take the upper division courses.
I don't think I have what it takes to be a physics professor but I might be able to swing high school physics
Checkout Prof Leonard's channel, he has lectures from pre Algebra all the way to Differential equations eventhough his Differential equations course has not been completed yet. I learnt pre calc, calc 1 and using his lectrure videos. I am currently learning calc 3 from him.
SO glad you brought up the importance of stat mech. most important book i've ever read.
love to see the simon clark "shoutout," he's awesome!
I would recommend "Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra and Differential Forms" by Hubbard and Hubbard instead of the usual vector analysis approach.
David Tong's lecture notes are a great resource, he has lecture notes on a fairly wide range of topics as well.
I agree, fully working through an entire calc based introductory physics text, especially with modern, would give most people a solid understanding that could even be useful in day to day life.
Linear algebra on year 3? That's very surprising to me as a math person. If someone how to get into math I'd say to do calculus and linear algebra first - and I'd say that learning linear algebra is more important than learning calculus (MUCH more important depending on what area of math you want to specialize in)
Physics departmant at my uni has only 1 pure physics course first year, the rest is real analysis, linear algebra and some more math courses
the thing which will use it the most is quantum mechanics, so it's okay to leave it for later if the focus is just the physics, but yeah, sounds unusual
That's true, but where I live in Colorado, if you do 2 years in community college first, then transfer to complete an undergraduate degree, you can't even take linear algebra until year 3. Or at least you can't use financial aid towards it since they don't require it for the AS.
Same. Undergrad degree is in math and I did linear algebra in my third semester. They might not need it until later though and if you take something in year 1-2 that you’ll need in year 3-4 that kind of puts an unnecessary gap between the two.
Also, what self respecting calc 3 course isn't teaching you div/curl/grad? Is it just me who's utterly perplexed by this? When she mentioned vector analysis I half expected her to hold up Spivak.
Honestly, the best thing to help keep up the science brain is friends. Someone to bring/share you problems to you so that way you don't exhaust all your self motivation. And someone to keep you doing problems, learning, and accountable.
I originally intented to do physics but there was too many maths units so I just did chemistry instead. Then at some point in my PhD I had to learn differential equations and I had no idea how to start. I literally fell asleep trying to read the undergrad books on the subject. Then I went to asking my Physics and Maths PhD friends to try to teach me... that went better. But even then my PhD examiners were annoyed I massively simplified the mathematics to make the point I wanted to make in my Thesis. I was a chemist doing chemical engineering related work, navier stokes stuff. I did at least 3 units on Thermodynamics! you telling me that isn't a thing now D:
>She is linking free PDFs.
We STAN this QUEEN. Thank you!
Oh . . . the thoughts about picking up studies again at my age. Quite the challenge, but tempting. I took physics in college and may have even gotten an A the first semester, but that was 40 years ago. Struggled bigly with the more advanced courses though.
You’re never too old to learn something new. It’s good for the ole noggin.
I think differential equations as a subject has a way that its been taught that hasn’t changed for centuries. There’s a good article by Gian-Carlo Rota wherein he states that when he was assigned to teach an undergrad differential equations class he went back and found that the order and presentation of the material in the current textbooks were exactly the same as they were in textbooks by Cauchy and George Boole. But for my money, ‘Differential Equations with Applications and Historical Notes’ by George Simmons is the textbook i found most helpful.
Also, that was indeed a book by Dirac. A great book too. I don’t feel i know the subject well enough to know but I learned a lot from it.
This channel & the Math Sorcerer go well together.
Would be cool to make a series together.
math sorcery?! that sounds right up my alley, thank you:)
My diffEQ textbook in school was made by our professor so I’m guessing he agreed with you on diffEQ textbooks. My best understanding came from the adjunct professor who taught my systems, dynamics, and controls class.
Not sure about the US but in the UK as a member of the public you can get access to university libraries so if you live somewhere with a university join up and see which books suit you before buying.
Absolutely, in the US I went to my universities libraries to start reading way before I enrolled in any classes
1. Thank you for sharing the bouncy ball story, on both personal and theoretical levels.
2. There is no mention of Zee’s books! This is a noteworthy exclusion.
I love your suggestion to use multipule sources/texts while learning something. I actually did exactly what you suggested during my undergrad and I read the Feynman lectures in paralell with my normal courses and I thought it was absolutley excellent for that.
I heisitate to reccomend the Feynman lectures as one's sole resource (I think they are fine especially if you are doing the practice problems) but they are absolutley fantastic as supplimental material.
Side note, in my edition of the Feynman lectures in hard copy there is a foreward by the man himself saying that he himself wasn't happy with how the third modern physics section turned out. But I found the second book on electromagnetism very helpful.
So incredibly unbelievably slay for putting them in the description
Wow this was a great video. I did a bachelors in physics and mathematics, then studied engineering. I really miss the physics. It takes a huge amount of focus and energy to master multiple topics in physics, but it can be quite satisfying.
Brolliant advice. I can’t recall many of the equations for SHM or kinematics or the wave function (psi?) but think I might be able to derive them in a few minutes. I still do calculus in my head to help me fall asleep sometimes, or derive trig identities.
I really want to give my children the influences they need to be confident enough to tackle physics at varsity if they want to.
This has been quite inspirational. I’ve always wanted to know something about QED. I’ve also forgotten a lot of math after 15 years of LIFE getting in the way. I’ll follow your advice and dig out my old “fundamentals of physics” text by Halliday Resnic and Walker and work the problems again :)
Many thanks for putting this together. I’ll likely refer back to it. So great to have an overview of the important books (I remember some of the Griffiths ones fondly). Only problem is knowing few people who are in my current circle who know anything about physics. Perhaps it’s time to engage people on the subject!
I adore David Griffiths Introduction to Electrodynamics. Not only is the subject matter interesting, but it is so well written that it's almost as engaging as a novel.
I also recommend Julius Summner Millers old videos. He has a great energy and talks about a ton of phenomena in a very short amount of time. So it's a great way to find tiny physics problems to think about and describe mathematically.
Always use interesting things you want to understand as opportunities to learn physics. For years i was very interested in understanding climate science and what really advanced my knowledge was to not be satisfied with qualitative answers. You should only be satiesfied once you know how to actually calculate something yourself. So with regards to climate science you might want to know how you chould approach calculating the amount of warming we get by doubling the CO2 concentration. That will teach you a lot of physics - a lot more physics then just being happy with a qualitative answer. Qualitative answers often just give you the illusion of understanding something. They often don't give you the full picture.
Climate science also led me to the Navier Stokes Equations and computer simulations via the finite difference method. Also very interesting. That's how they are able to model wind patterns so accurately in climate models. It's really fascinating.
Ty for making this. I'm undergrad physics rn, just got done with physics foundation, like right before modern physics. I really enjoyed learning about electric current and inductance and waves and lenses this last semester it was so much more fun than pulleys and throwing balls and weights. Anyways, it's nice to get a better idea of what lies ahead of me and success tips from a source that seems so earnest and knowledgeable. I'm really looking forward to modern physics.
This book may be a little before your time, as it was a little before my time 30 years ago, but I really liked Elementary Differential Equations by Boyce & DiPrima. I used my father's copy (from 60 years ago) as a backup to the textbook assigned by my prof, and felt that the explanations were actually better than the more modern text.
I can highly recommend Boyce and DiPrima. It is the textbook I used 60 years ago at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. I can also recommend as a basic physics book Resnick and Halliday. Robert Resnick was my physics teacher back in the late sixties. I think the book is now in its 10th edition.
I just graduated from BioMedical sci, and i used to study a level physics and loved it. I am trying to rekindle that passion and trying to self-learn physics and math from scratch again. This video helps alot on where to start! thank you so much for motivating me
The Dirac book is actually by Paul Dirac. He kept updating it until late in his life. Contrary to most other older textbooks on quantum mechanics, Dirac's book is still very accessible, and it feels modern because he uses his "Dirac" notation (BTW, John Von Neuman, in the preface of his book, totally has a hissy fit over the Dirac delta function; worth a read!).
Which book by Neumann?
Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics @@1eV
Just found your chanel, I am working slowly towards going back to school for physics, with an ultimate goal of teaching physics, this video is a good place for me to start
For ADVANCED ELECTRODYNAMICS i recommend "A Modern Introduction to Classical Electrodynamics" by Michele Maggiore, it's a modern version of Landau, but more accessible!!
I wish so much I followed my brain and went into physics rather than IT in college. Now I'm 40 with an active career and just looking overwhelmed at the idea of reading all of these books on my own, in addition of work and hobbies. The biggest challenge now will be to pick only one of your books and read it in a year or two.
Awesome Video!
Computer Science Student here(Graduated 2 years ago), Sometimes I get the urge to just start over in probably physics or core maths.. I've done Calculus, Linear Algebra etc And this doesn't just happen for physics, it happens for Biology & Chemistry(Probably because high school was shiit). I also currently work as a software engineer. Might get a 5 year study plan to go through these. Cheers.. Happy New year
Good luck to you. I'm also a software engineer and learning a bunch of math for fun now. It's definitely enriching!
Thanks for going through all these textbooks. I am 63 years old and still find subjects interesting even though I have never "done" them. I am impressed with myself that I have heard of Feynman...LOL. Have a wonderful day - 6 months later.
Just google pdf versions, don't buy textbooks. Even better, you can find lecture note pdfs by famous lecturers/courses from famous universities, which are sometimes at least as good as actual textbooks.
but then how will i fill my bookshelves with physics books so when people come over they’ll think im smart
MIT opencourseware Is Amazing I learned so much with their algorithms material
I taught myself calculus & physics before I attended university & became an engineer, the high school I was at, wasn’t doing enough to suit my needs so I had to do it on my own. But either way, it worked out. Unfortunately the individual is the best teacher is self, no amount of external instruction will have the same impact.
If you're interested in quantum physics I, I highly recommend the MIT lectures (free on MITs open courseware or on youtube) by Allan Adams (and sometimes Barton Zwiebach): Really well done and easy to follow with excellent lecture notes.
How does it compare to the playlist only by Barton Zwiebach?
@@1eV Barton's lectures are also very good, but have a more mathematical bent. I find Adams's lectures more approachable if this is your first quantum physics class. In all, they are both very good. Personally I watched Zwiebach's lectures after Adams'; Had I started with Zwiebach I think I would have been a little more confused. All in all, they are both excellent.
@@nickelchlorine2753 thanks for the recommendations, I will check those out, too :)
Some of their lecture notes are hand written! Can’t read! I study the material from the classes that are way harder than I am credentially qualified to take.
I'm surprised I haven't seen a recommendation for Chabay and Sherwood's Matter and Interactions in your video or in the comments. It's a much more modern approach to teaching physics which integrates a good deal of 20th century understanding into its discussion of classical mechanics and electrodynamics. It also teaches some basic computational modelling, which is essential to every branch of physics today.
21:18 I think this is a very specifically american thing (to get a bunch of stuff and then return it or sell it back in a garage sale) because my 3rd world country brain can't get around getting a bunch of preparatory hardware before doing a thing... I typically had to start with bad - usually detrimental - equipment and if I did well or felt I was getting better I could get better equipment (some examples: Guitars, swimming goggles). For something as broad as physics a guideline of your favorites makes absolute sense. Thanks for the lagrangian/hamiltonian recs!
"Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill
It's on the level of Jackson without the sharp edges.
The selection of examples and problems are very physics-oriented.
LOVE the Dover books!!! Yeah, they’re dry and dated, but maybe it’s because my favorite math prof was a big fan and used them as textbooks way back in the day. Also, big shout out to Shankar. LOVE his books (his sense of humor totally resonates, adding an element of entertainment to what can be an otherwise stale discussion). His big, red QM book is an absolute favorite. Regarding GR, Wald’s book has long been a favorite. Bonus…it can be downloaded as a PDF, no cost.
BTW, here in Minnesota, Half Price Books can be a gold mine. It’s weird, but a lot of these obscure texts are often on the shelf. I’ve come across some AMAZING finds at used book stores, especially when in a college town.
I bought their mathematics for physics book and I taught myself nearly all of it (I think it later got water damaged)
The freshman physics course that I took had extremely strict homework format requirements and we were literally graded down for not drawing some kind of picture for every single problem. Honestly, forming the habits of drawing SOME kind of picture every time and having to explain, in words, why I was doing the math I was doing did so much for my learning. Later on, when I worked grading for that same class, forcing the students to do that made it so much easier for me, as a grader, to figure out what the students had done wrong and write down "You thought X, but X is incorrect and here's why Y instead." It really was a wonderful system for students who really wanted to make sure that they were learning the material completely.
I never did anything with physics, and I've lost most of it over the years, but I genuinely cannot recommend enough the rigor of drawing a picture every time and explaining in words why you did the math you did. Made studying for exams a BREEZE as well, because my homework functioned as a complete study guide, annotated in MY OWN WORDS after being forced to spend a couple hours thinking about it, rather than studying from the wording the professor used that I scribbled down while half paying attention because it was an hour before lunch.
I never drew the pictures correctly but I somehow got one of the few A’s in the class. I’m autistic and my math comprehension is very nonverbal. That honestly sounds like some common core BS. The fact that you forgot most of your physics speaks for itself.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 Well, considering that I haven't done any math let alone physics in over a decade, it's not surprising that I'm rusty. If you have a disability which needs accommodating for a particular class style, that's why accessibility offices exist. That doesn't change the value of setting up a class to incentivize students to actually think through the problems and be able to communicate their thought process, both of which are skills that are very useful if they are ever going to, say, write a thesis.
@@lerualnaej5917 When you’re autistic you don’t forget stuff so easily. I can describe my thought process but it would sound schizophrenic because of all the metaphors I use internally as mnemonics or whatever. Also explaining a theory for a doctoral dissertation is different from explaining why I used this or that value in this or that equation. I might even end up confusing myself and brainwashing myself with the wrong words.
Also the disability offices aren’t sufficiently accommodating. I need to be allowed to skip as many classes as I want (attending class and the excess socialization that entails stupefies me with anxiety and if I have to attend class every day for a couple of weeks I start behaving like a bipolar person) and turn in homework as late as I want (focusing on deadlines makes it not consolidate into long term memory properly) or better yet just grade me on the test but they have to dumb classes down in every way that makes it more accommodating to neurotypicals and less accommodating to autistics and there is only so far they will allow you to go if the class has mandatory attendance for a grade or homework for a grade. I have had to sacrifice my attendance grade to save my essay grade, or my homework grade to save my test grade (I did the homework I just refused to turn it in because I cannot do homework with the intention of turning it in without stressing my amygdala out so much it fails to form enough long-term memory of the math material, I have to do the homework just to learn it with no intention of turning it in and hopefully get it done before the deadline on accident and then suddenly change my mind about turning it in last-minute but I don’t think that will usually happen unless I set a timer and somehow completely forget that the timer exists)
6:40 differential equations cannot be taught, it is pure sorcery
I had an excellent teacher. it helps if you already know calculus. because that's what it is. applied calculus.
I’m so glad the internet was in it’s infancy when I was in school. It existed, but barely, and not helpfully for solving problems.
Also, Angela, your advice of just getting used to feeling stupid when you first start a problem is dead on. I’ve been saying that for years. Studying for the qualifier was an exercise in starting every problem completely stumped and then realizing that I eventually usually get there. The training to some extent was becoming accustomed to setting that strong-as-fuck feeling aside and getting to work anyway.
(PhD ‘01)
Good advice all around here. For anyone that wants a calculus-based rather than an algebra-based approach to that broad introductory-level text, "Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday, Resnick, and Walker is a standard text universities use to teach their calculus-based freshmen-level physics courses.
I was actually surprised that book wasn't mentioned. It's really good.
There is no such thing as a calculus based freshmen level math course. I took one and I literally remembered everything from high school and I didn’t even get to take AP in high school. The calculus involved is so superficial you don’t need to understand it at all. Honestly they should just wait until you know enough math to understand calculus of variations before giving you any physics courses.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 I agree that the calculus is fairly superficial at that level. I've seen many introductory physics students struggle more with the algebra than the calculus.
@@ChaosKnight7000 Seriously if you get the hand of that you should just skip straight to upper division classical mechanics.
Back in 2015 I did Landau-Lifshitz classical mechanics, writing down all exercises as Wildberger would.
Admittedly, I only did this for 2 chapters before I gave up on the idea. But at least I can now reflect on it ten years later in a youtube comment.
My differential equations class used “Fundamentals of Differential Equations” by Nagle, Saff and Snider. I didn’t think it was that bad. It was 15 years ago though.
Angela: As a retired AP physics teacher who has gone back to grad school to chase a physics PhD purely for pleasure, I can honestly say that your approach to physics education and learning dwarfs that of most professors and teachers! You have a very realistic and pragmatic view that I wish could be heard by every physics student…. regardless of their stage in life! Thanks for this incredibly thoughtful summary of the topic. You have wisdom and perspective of physics educators twice your age! Keep up the great work!
That's really nice, thank you! Enjoy your phd!!
6:25 lmao I also took two DiffEq classes and they just boiled down to “just guess, but make sure you guess right”
I have read about 80% of these books during my undergrad and PhD in physics. I loved most of them and still read textbooks. Great list!
Saw your video on crackpots the other day. That subject always reminds me of Jair Bolsonaro's late guru. He was a junior-high dropout who wanted to be recognized as a philosopher, but in fact he was an astrologist and a columnist. He was vocally opposed to Einstein's relativity and stated the geocentric claim was as valid as the heliocentric claim (or any other model where the Earth is not in the center) because the only difference was, according to him, the frame of reference. He wanted to roll back science to the Aristotelian model, because he was a TradCath (Earth in the center as proof of man's importance in God's creation, plus Thomas Aquinas' neo-Aristotelianism). He also said there was no fossil fuel because hydrocarbonates were also found in another galaxy [EDIT: where there's never been a dinosaur - yes, he said that]. And he believed Pepsi was made with aborted foetus as sweetener. And then he died because he didn't believe smoking caused cancer and that COVID was real. But while he was alive, he got to influence a president, albeit a very stupid one.
The frame of reference thing is technically true. I interned under an old physics PhD who said Newton could have saved himself a lot of trouble by saying "hey these calculations are a lot easier if we just *pretend* the sun is at 0,0,0 in this wacky temporary coordinate system"
@@PeterStinklage
But in this case, it's geocentrism. How would you explain the motion of other bodies in the solar system through geocentrism? You'd have to say the sun goes around Earth and everything else goes around the sun that goes around the Earth. For a TradCath, that undermines Earth's importance, as everybody else in the sky is cuckolding her with the sun. It's not geocentrism anymore, but outsourced heliocentrism.
@@crisoliveira2644
The Earth... _likes to watch._
@@crisoliveira2644 yes I suppose you can't get around the idea that the conceptual center is fake. Bolsonaro's guy seems to have admitted that, but If I wanted to mollify the Church in the old days I would say that if the Earth and Sun were connected by a bar, and the Sun to the remaining planets, you're free to declare Earth the "mover" of the bar just as an athlete is the "mover" of a pull-up bar. They won't understand the details anyway, and you can say that this is better than accusing God of making the purest Heavens engage in tempestuous behavior
o cara veio militar num video bicho... vaitomanoseucu imundo some daqui
A long time ago in a world that seems no longer to exist, Mary Boas was my professor for Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences at DePaul.
so you mean I will spend 10 years on this
A lifetime of you love it.
Do a speedrun
Thanks for posting this, I get these kind of questions from people quite often as well.
I am 100% with you at 2:50-3:00 when you say (paraphrase) everytime you hold your old UG calc book you feel the urge to teach yourself math.
We'll need the video on how to read research papers cause I know I'm not the only one who's struggling lol.
I think it just comes with practice and familiarity, but yeah that might be a neat video idea! I bet there are a lot of little tricks and shit that people [like me] who don't spend a ton of time reading research papers for work would probably never think of
This is brilliant I wish more people would do practical subject overviews filled with textbook recommendations
Dirac definitely wrote a book called "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics", but it was in the 1930s. Probably not a good choice if you're just trying to learn quantum mechanics.
And it's a DENSE read as well, didn't age really well notation-wise (not necessarily a bad book tho)...
This book aided me in understanding the Hamiltonian formulation further, and what quantization "means". But yeah, it's not an introductory book.
I think philosophy of quantum mechanics is a good place to start.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 In that vein, I'm fond of Albert's "Quantum Mechanics and Experience"
@@josiahslack8720 I read that and another book for my philosophy of physics class.
I think your advice is genuine n honest .Pls continue doing these videos you will surely inspire many people. You are talking from your life experience, I can feel it.thanks.
Bruh, I'm coming here to learn physics from you. I can't do it myself, it isn't as entertaining!
You tube?? I thought i have covered all physicist youtuber....but here she is doing what i was looking for.
Thank you for your vital information. Im undergrad student of physics. Want to be a theoretical physicist.
I am in no way going to teach myself physics but I gave the video 7 minutes just in case
I'm 15 and I plan to read every popular science book I see and study mathematics and physics for three years and then major in physics in college. Tell me what you think
Good job
Try your hand at _The Theoretical Minimum_ by Susskind & friends. It occupies this perfect niche between a textbook and a popular science book, which doesn't exist in the same way even in other fields. Do the exercises!
The Principles of Quantum Mechanics is written by P.A.M. Dirac and it is a real textbook (not a collection of papers staples together by someone else.) It is my personal favorite introductory QM textbook and I highly recommend it.
Could you please make a video on the various symbols used in physics equations, there’s Greek symbols and then there’s others like the limit and sum symbols, etc.
This would be immensely valuable, having an introductory explanation of each symbol that I can refer back to.
My issue is I don’t know how to read them, like how to say the symbol mentally while I’m reading the equations
I think part of the reason why I was turned off from a lot of physics and maths was because of the symbols even when they tell you what they mean, I ended up in computer science but using an analogy from computer science, sometimes they seem more like entire objects than variables.
Some of these symbols and variables are not just representing a number or unit system, but often are a lot more complex (and I don't just mean literally like i ), they could be entire arrays of vectors and matrix's ! Many simple symbols can be entire concepts wrapped in a function!
I did physics in my freshman year of college, in 1988 in Australia. I still got my Serway in a closet somewhere. That’s how truely universal that textbook is.
You're awesome I love your videos
Some background. I have a BA in Chemistry with a Physics minor, so my qualifications are way less than our good doctor who gave us this video. When this video came out, I saw all the textbook recommendations and while I agree that there are very good reasons these are standard texts to teach, it is overwhelming.
Now in watching the whole thing I see how I should have watched more.
Back when I was in school we used Serway for Sophomore Modern Physics, and I liked how he explained things enough that I grabbed a review copy of the Freshman book you recommended. I have used it enough that I definitely would recommend it over the Freshman book I used as a Freshman. That said, it is Halliday, Resnick and Walker that I used basically being a TA for a summer class that sits on my bookshelf.
Everything that you recommended in this video is good. Do problems. Talk with others doing problems. Talk with a someone who has the patience to direct you through this.
My first Physics professor hammered into us that in so many ways Physics is simple but not easy. One of the hardest parts is to remember or recognize that simplicity when things get, uh, interesting.
Learning physics isn't hard
When you've got a library card
what?
@@1eV It's from Arthur (the little stuffed guy on the shelf behind her)
2:50 -'every time i hold a calculus text I'm like i don't really know math well enough - i should relearn math'
i like you
Honestly surprised a string theory book is in this video.
I graduated in 2008 with a Physics degree unfortunately couldn't find a job so I started working construction now I own the company and I have not done any math except for calculating some angles and the amount of volume it requires to fill holes with concrete LOL I would love to get back into it and your videos are definitely motivating me to
I don’t know who this A. Mazon and this E. Bay are, I get my books through this archive my friend Anna has, or this library my cousin Genevieve works at.
I was actually discussing my needs with Genevieve while watching the video; she was able to assist immediately. Thank you for introducing me to Anna, we were not previously acquainted ...
I feel like studying something casually in one's free time takes all the stress and expectation out of it. Thanks for the tips 👍
Looks a lot like my course of study in the mid to late 1990s.
but classical mechanics and thermodynamics were required and nuclear physics as well. I only did undergrad physics though.
I would agree, although, in 1983-1984 my first year Physics text was "The Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday and Resnick. In the 1990's there were a lot of calls for textbook reform that fell on deaf ears. It seems to happen about every twenty years or so. Eugen Merzbacher gave a speech on it that appeared in the American Journal of Physics while at the same time another professor stated that students were not properly trained for advanced work in Physics in the same AJP issue. Joseph Agassi noted in "Einstein vs Bohr" by Mendel Sachs that what made a good academic student was not what made a good research physicist. Over the years and decades, I've come to agree with David Hestenes regarding "Physics as Modeling." I now regard the disputes about textbooks as a less important sub issue because many professors and physicists have pointed out that students have been playing the wrong game all along and have not been trained to be physicists nor taught physics in high school that was directly applicable to their lives. Dr. Roger Schank, PhD is an education reformer that majored in math but was a major influencer and professor in A.I. that tells high school students straight out that physics as it's been taught for a long time is useless. And then it's interesting to note that another advocate of education reform, Sugata Mitra, that was teaching computer science was a physics graduate.
Now, IBM Watson and chatGPT can play Physics Trivial Pursuit better than most students. One has to be an expert to detect chatGPT's hallucinations. It looks like the arguing over letting calculators into physics classes over slide rules. My grade 11 Physics teacher actually made us use slide rules in the early 1980's. We used no programmable calculators in first year University so I liked seeing the calculator come out in this video with a comment on how old it was.
I love this video! Of course, it's awesome to see such an honest and thorough guide to learning physics for those new to the field, but also because it reminded me that these big complicated concepts are things I can learn, even on my own!
I don't have a ODEs textbook to recommend but I do have a PDE textbook to recommend.
Introduction to Partial Differential Equations by Peter J. Olver published by Spring is a really nice book. I really learned how to think about math working through this book. I used this book to teach myself PDEs before going into work everyday for like 4 months in 2018. It is an undergraduate text.
I would add that if you're interesting is a specific topic in physical go to the relevant engineering field and start working through those books. They will fill out the space of the topic with application. They are also a little slower at the undergrad level. An Example would be the Sophomore Mechanical Engineering sequence: Statics, Dynamics, and Strength and Material. This will also dump you at the door of Taylor's Classical Mechanics.