Is it true with enough work you can get through any class no matter how difficult?

[XmedBarney]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I think the difficulty of upper year physics completely depends on the profs and program. GR, EM, Solid State, QM, and particle physics can all be difficult depending on what the prof teaches in class. In my upper year QM our prof decided to teach a semester on quantum computing, and it turned out to be the easiest course of that semester. Next semester we did path integral formulation and our heads were just about exploding. The only challenging part of my EM class was Lienard-Wiechert potentials and that was only because the integrals were monstrous. There is a huge variation of difficulty between topics in these fields and it's more or less up to what your program teaches you. Also, depending on whether differential geometry and group theory is a prereq for your degree, GR and particle physics respectively can be very, very, very difficult (as they require very different formalism than one is used to from 1-3 year).

The vast majority of American physics programs(UG) teach QM and E&M with Griffith's books or books at the same level It's absolutely true that physics courses tend to beas difficult as the professor decides to make them, but they are definitely more mathematically involved
than classes in chemistry. I was comparing apples to apples, in terms of P-chem to Stat. Mechanics and Q.Mechanics. The path integral formulation
and GR with Diff. Geometry are usually left to graduate courses. From what my Phd friends have said, learning from Jackson was far more difficult
for them than Sakurai.(These are the books my school uses, for graduate E&M and QM, respectively.)

 

[knv2u]

@fuzzytoad

I think he was probably referring to whether our view of the nature of the universe (through the lens of QM) is the truth, in which case our model reflects the underlying physical reality, or whether the true nature of the universe is out of our grasp and the model we use gives us accurate predictions because we haven't tested it in a way that would show the universe's true nature. In other words, are we still approximating the physical reality of the universe with QM and all of the models that follow?

Probably*Probably.

That's the way I would interpret it. Not to get off topic, but there is a huge disconnect between quantum mechanics and relativity, and since both have proven accurate in predicting physical phenomena at the microscopic and macroscopic level respectively, one or both of the theories will most certainly be revised in the future. So I think his statement is still correct. I hope I this fundamental problem of physics is solved during my lifetime.

 

[circulus vitios]

Or are there some classes that either you're smart enough to do well in it, or you aren't. I'm currently taking a Complex Analysis class because I did good in Calc (stupid me) and it seems like no matter how much time I put into it (Upwards of 20 hours a week) I just do not get the concepts while others do. (4o on first midterm, after studying my ass off) Perhaps I'm not as mathematically inclined as I thought, is this going to be the same story in some upper div science classes like Pchem or Analytical Chem? Are there going to be some classes that no matter how much work you put into it, an A just won't be achievable?

Absolutely. I was a math major. Toward the end of my degree, I had absolutely no idea what the **** was going on in some of my classes. The same probably applies to upper-level physics classes, because the mathematics gets so insane. Chemistry and biology, probably not so much.

 

[487806]

I don't want to **** on other people's work, but P-chem is more like quantum lite. and Stat. Mech lite. I have plenty of chem. major friends and seen their classwork. And Q.Mech is not the hardest part of an UG curriculum in physics, that credit goes to E&M.

What's your major?

EDIT: nvm, I noticed you're a math/physics major, unlike those imposter premeds. I guess it varies from university to university. For me, I'll just say that all upper-level physics classes are not at all easy (i.e. your typical premed will get a heart attack when they see the material), so it's nonsense in comparing difficulties between classes.

I'll just end this digression: physical sciences is difficult. That's indisputable, so it's not worth the time arguing about which class is harder, because it's off-topic jargon.

 

[Arayh]

There are only so many hours in a day, unless of course you move to another planet where the days are longer.

 

[bulldogmed]

I don't want to **** on other people's work, but P-chem is more like quantum lite. and Stat. Mech lite. I have plenty of chem. major friends and seen their classwork. And Q.Mech is not the hardest part of an UG curriculum in physics, that credit goes to E&M.

I'm not saying that it wasn't QM-lite and Stat Mech-lite. The poster I quoted said that chem was trivially easy to understand. That may be true for gen chem, and to some extent organic, but certainly not for p-chem.

 

[XmedBarney]

What's your major?

EDIT: nvm, I noticed you're a math/physics major, unlike those imposter premeds. I guess it varies from university to university. For me, I'll just say that all upper-level physics classes are not at all easy (i.e. your typical premed will get a heart attack when they see the material), so it's nonsense in comparing difficulties between classes.

I'll just end this digression: physical sciences is difficult. That's indisputable, so it's not worth the time arguing about which class is harder, because it's off-topic jargon.

I agree, and it wasn't my intention to talk down to anyone.

 

[Lil Mick]

Or are there some classes that either you're smart enough to do well in it, or you aren't. I'm currently taking a Complex Analysis class because I did good in Calc (stupid me) and it seems like no matter how much time I put into it (Upwards of 20 hours a week) I just do not get the concepts while others do. (4o on first midterm, after studying my ass off) Perhaps I'm not as mathematically inclined as I thought, is this going to be the same story in some upper div science classes like Pchem or Analytical Chem? Are there going to be some classes that no matter how much work you put into it, an A just won't be achievable?

Getting a PhD in math right now. If you're jumping from calc to complex analysis, you're going to be lost, especially if you haven't studied the material before complex analysis on your own. One book that helped me with complex analysis: Elementary Real and Complex Analysis by Shilov. It's very calc and geometry based and builds complex analysis from topics in real analysis, which is more like what you saw in calc. And 10-20 hours a week for a class that is considered graduate level in many math departments is pretty normal for folks getting A's and B's in it.

Last semester, I had 3 graduate math courses and probably put in 30 hours or more a week on homework and studying for exams--and there were some exams that I bombed even with that much preparation. Office hours were a must, and I looked through other textbooks and on-line resources, too. FYI, our real analysis class had an average under 40 with quite a few folks getting single digit scores. High level mathematics courses are an entity unto themselves when it comes to level of difficulty (with an exception of maybe math-based theoretical physics sorts of classes).

 

[fuzzytoad]

... High level mathematics courses are an entity unto themselves when it comes to level of difficulty (with an exception of maybe math-based theoretical physics sorts of classes).

Which, who are we kidding, are basically just math classes.