Customer Discussions > Science forum

If I were to study theoretical physics, starting from hight school, in


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-20 of 20 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 18, 2013 10:26:29 PM PDT
jpl says:
what order should I study the maths, and which maths should I study together, considering that maths are all I'd be studying?

I appreciate all your responses. I'm an older guy, so I'd have to learn some maths I didn't learn in high school, which, at the time, I didn't take seriously. I'm fascinated with theoretical physics. Thanks ahead of time.

Appreciative,
jpl

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2013 10:29:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 18, 2013 10:39:45 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
trig, calc, differential equations and linear algebra, partial differential equations, real analysis, complex analysis, calculus of variations, group theory, topology, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2013 10:39:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 18, 2013 10:47:05 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
I forgot to ask: is this a high schooler looking forward or other person looking back? If you are in high school, just take the most advanced math curriculum offered and then when you get to college your adviser (and other trusted/respected faculty) will point you toward the specific classes.

http://xkcd.com/895/

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2013 11:04:11 PM PDT
Re OP: Doctor Who's advice is sound (as it usually is). You will need basic calculus (differential and integral) to study Newtonian mechanics. Differential equations will come into play when you get into heat flow and thermodynamics. Fourier transforms will be used when you start dealing with quantum mechanics, also Legendre polynomials, Laguerre polynomials, and the like provide solutions for problems in spherical coordinates.

Posted on Mar 19, 2013 6:38:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 19, 2013 9:08:11 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2013 11:27:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 19, 2013 11:27:49 AM PDT
How remarkably un-enlighted of you, Haynes! Are you trying for some government grant, perhaps to find the lowest possible bounds of human intellect?

Although I have to say, at least you have been internally consistent enough to take your own advice! Obviously, you yourself have skipped all those labs, and you produce nothing but fiction. Should we likewise infer from item 3) that your ambition is to become a criminal, or that perhaps you already are one?

Posted on Mar 19, 2013 11:48:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 19, 2013 2:58:57 PM PDT
Very respectfully, youre wrong.

Some poor guy, he wants to become a Peer Reviewed Theoretical Physicist.
So I just gave him advice on what to study.

Myself, I didnt want to waste 20 years to be a drone, working on nonsense.
I wanted to help the missus raise ourselfs a family, and do something useful job-wise. So I went into drilling.

You make big bucks, and you get the oil and gas everybody needs,
for heat, plastics, electricity, cars, jet skis, stuff like that.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2013 12:00:47 PM PDT
Excellent! Just what we need: Hastening the end of the world. What could be more useful than that?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2013 12:35:14 PM PDT
Ryan S. Hupp says:
"milking Uncle Sam's gravy"

Good god, that sounds sexy. UM FILTHY I MEAN FILTHY

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2013 1:03:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 19, 2013 1:06:39 PM PDT
John Smith says:
I hate to burst your bubble, Randall, but what you're speaking of here is like the Goddidit vs Itevolved struggle so prevalent in this forum. While on the one hand you point a finger and say "There is no evidence", on the other you provide little upon which to base an informed decision.

You might say, "The ultimate proof would be to provide evidence of this God you claim to believe in."

What you (or the scientific establishment) have failed to provide is the "original organism": the basis upon which the theory of evolution is founded. This theme of lacking origins (or evidence) is repeated throughout science - especially the theoretical kind.

In case you haven't noticed, this equates to you pointing an accusatory finger at someone for doing the same thing you are guilty of.

Take for instance: I have been trying to get someone to respond to a comment on the schwarzchild proton paper, but everyone is obviously too busy creating fake threads like this one and responding to them.

Back on topic, if it is the end of the world you are concerned about, there are some very immediate and very real answers to the dilemma. What you should be asking is: "Why are scientists not giving us the tools necessary to make practical use of them?", but of course this would not fit into the agenda.

Mr. Haynes has pointed out the appropriate coursework evidenced by the aforementioned behavior. If there were sincere concern for the earth's environment (that is what I see implied), science has all of the knowledge necessary to remedy the situation post haste. Since you aren't asking the question, I will:

Why aren't they saving the world, giving us clean, safe fossil fuel alternatives? To Mr. Haynes credit, it might be said that theoretical physicists have the biggest toolboxes, but are unable to build anything useful with the contents thereof'.

How's that for anti-science ranting?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2013 1:25:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 19, 2013 1:28:36 PM PDT
You got all that out of my two sentence long post? Amazing!

If only your extrapolations were more carefully conceived, they might have been to the point.

[Also, if you weren't so out there in space, I'd ask about the thread you were talking about. However, the advert on your sandwich board is looking a bit uninviting.]

Posted on Mar 19, 2013 3:05:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 19, 2013 3:11:43 PM PDT
Peer Reviewed Science
No Data?
No Problem!

Read what our satisfied clients say:

"I made big bucks selling books. About an imaginary infinite multiverse. Where Lee defeats Grant!"
Dr S.H., phd BMOC Oxford England

"It was easy to be a top Peer Reviewed Physicist, just by spouting baloney about 9 dimensional branes."
Dr. L.R. phd BGOC, Cambridge MA

"Become a Peer Reviewed NASA Astrobiologist. Never any work. No data to worry about and no chance of ever getting any."
D.T., phd, Huntsville AL

"Interpreting dreams and sub-conscious thoughts, you pull the stuff from thin air and the profs lap it up. Speaking fees galore Take it from me , there's a sucker born every minute"
Dr. S.F. MD Vienna, Austria.

"We've milked the NSF for 80 years. Naturalistic abiogenisis. The ultimate gravy train, nobody never expects no results".
Dr J.S., phd BMOC Cambridge USA

"Earm 100G's a year as a Peer Reviewed Theortical Physicst. You wont ever need to use your noodle. Somebody asks a question, say anything. In the undetectable infinite universe, any answer is right".
Dr L. S. phd BMOC, Berkely CA

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2013 5:57:09 PM PDT
If the farthest you've gone is high-school algebra, then the essential next topics to study in math if you're interested in theoretical physics is trigonometry followed by calculus. Once you have studied trig and calculus (calculus of one variable, multiple variables, and vector calculus), the next topic should be differential equations (ordinary differential equations, i.e., differential equations involving functions of one variable, and partial differential equations, i.e., differential equations involving functions of mutiple variables), you know most of what is needed for introductory classical mechanics, electromagnetism, and relativity. For introductory quantum mechanics the only other thing you'll need is some basic linear algebra (matrices).

Posted on Mar 19, 2013 6:14:29 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
It should be pointed out that if you arrive at college ready to start calculus, then you are not behind. The first year or so of physics instruction will not go beyond 1 variable calculus and so you take the requisite math and physics courses simultaneously. Of course, its good to get a head start if you can. There is nothing wrong with being able to get ahead in the math curriculum. The first year will be all GEs anyway so you will not miss anything substantial if you have to take prerequisite math during that time as well.

The distinction between the different specialties (condensed matter, particle physics, etc) will not become particularly apparent until your senior year as cariculumthat is when you take your specialty classes. The difference between theory and experiment also will not be present until graduate school. This is because the theory is really all that can be taught during the undergraduate experience. Your research (and yes, you should do that) will probably also be experimental because you don't know enough theory to be useful.

In the short term, you should also become very comfortable with Linux as well as python, c++, and (for high energy) root programming. Both of these skills are very valuable and can be acquired in summer, although you should take formal classes in programming as well. In my experience, no one really cares for the formal instruction. They care more that you can do the programming. For Linux, the easiest way to become proficient with it is to install a virtual machine and play with the "hacker" distros such as arch, gentoo, or slackware. Any of these will teach you basic bash which is what you are really after. You will probably spend most of your time interacting with a headless server, so the GUI doesn't matter.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2013 6:37:36 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
John, if it's not a bother, link me to the Schwarz proton paper please.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2013 7:07:04 PM PDT
I thought protons were color neutral........

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2013 7:09:38 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
',,,You make big bucks, and you get the oil and gas everybody needs,
for heat, plastics, electricity, cars, jet skis, stuff like that.' ....

All of which having been developed and improved through peer reviewed science...

mmmmm, how deliciously ironic!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2013 7:18:10 PM PDT
"C. H. is a total moron who has spent years BSing everyone, since he never had an original thought".
Dr. N. H., Ph.D, Psy.D, RN, Austin, TX

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2013 7:21:19 PM PDT
<snicker>

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2013 9:41:53 AM PDT
You forgot to add "BMOC" and "Peer-Reviewed" to increase the level of contempt.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  11
Total posts:  20
Initial post:  Mar 18, 2013
Latest post:  Mar 20, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions