{"post_id":"o40wgz","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is entropy an illusion? Is entropy an illusion? Entropy is a measure for the amount of microstates that are possible in a macrostate. Like when two gasses are mixed, the entropy is high because we can't see the different particles. Every gas particle is the same for us. But from the viewpoint of the microstates every particle is different. So e.g. a state where particle 735 is on the left side is different than a state where it is on the right site. So every microstate has only 1 possibility and has entropy zero. Doesn't that mean that in reality entropy is always zero? We just think that it is more because we can't make a difference between all the microstates. If so, then that would mean that entropy is never increasing, it's always zero.","c_root_id_A":"h2f2un9","c_root_id_B":"h2eu12o","created_at_utc_A":1624188577,"created_at_utc_B":1624180197,"score_A":102,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This is a good question, definitely not deserving the downvotes you've received so far. Yes, there would seem to be an arbitrariness in how we construct macrostates from microstates. You've pointed out the \"every microstate is different\" extreme, but you could also consider the other extreme, \"every microstate is the same\", which would also give you zero entropy. How you decide to define macrostates in terms of microstates can lead to paradoxes. But very quickly, we get to some fundamental and very difficult questions at the heart of the philosophies of statistical mechanics, probability more generally, and information theory. Is probability some kind of objective measure of uncertainty (perhaps in a frequentist, or maybe a time-averaged analysis), or is it meant to quantify our ignorance about the system (in some kind of bayesian approach)? Of course, in practice, this doesn't matter. There is almost always a clear-cut definition for the entropy, based on fundamental macroscopic degrees of freedom which already \"click together\" nicely (intensively or extensively): volume, energy, particle number. We can then use the third law to fix the zero of the entropy. Unfortunately, I have more questions than answers at this point. There's an important paper by Jaynes which argues for the subjective point of view. But other physicists argue that we can still recover an objective physical entropy.","human_ref_B":">Every gas particle is the same for us. But from the viewpoint of the microstates every particle is different. This is false >We just think that it is more because we can't make a difference between all the microstates. It is not that we can't make a difference. There literally is no difference between all the microstates. That's a consequence of the identical nature of fundamental particles etc. There are other cases in physics where we use this phenomenon (some cross section calculation life hacks come to mind).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8380.0,"score_ratio":20.4} {"post_id":"o40wgz","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is entropy an illusion? Is entropy an illusion? Entropy is a measure for the amount of microstates that are possible in a macrostate. Like when two gasses are mixed, the entropy is high because we can't see the different particles. Every gas particle is the same for us. But from the viewpoint of the microstates every particle is different. So e.g. a state where particle 735 is on the left side is different than a state where it is on the right site. So every microstate has only 1 possibility and has entropy zero. Doesn't that mean that in reality entropy is always zero? We just think that it is more because we can't make a difference between all the microstates. If so, then that would mean that entropy is never increasing, it's always zero.","c_root_id_A":"h2f6hru","c_root_id_B":"h2eu12o","created_at_utc_A":1624191528,"created_at_utc_B":1624180197,"score_A":17,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think the point you're getting to here is that entropy is a property of a macrostate, not a microstate. What is a macrostate? It's a subset of possible microstate that *we* chose to define in some way that's convenient for describing a physical system. Of course, a real experimental system is always in one specific microstate, so macrostates are just a feature of our description. Unlike QM, where we have to struggle philosophically with whether probabilities represent something real or not, in classical stat mech, we know that the probabilities are a feature of our description and not some metaphysical random number generator. That doesn't mean it's not useful though. There is a view that allows us to relate things like macrostates and entropy to real experimental systems, though. If the system evolves in a way that allows it to explore all its possible states in a nice way (this is called ergodicity), then even though at any one time, the system is in one microstate, we can take consecutive measurements at different times and construct an empirical distribution for our observables. Then the prediction of statistical mechanics (based on macrostates) can be thought of as the limit of that distribution at infinite time.","human_ref_B":">Every gas particle is the same for us. But from the viewpoint of the microstates every particle is different. This is false >We just think that it is more because we can't make a difference between all the microstates. It is not that we can't make a difference. There literally is no difference between all the microstates. That's a consequence of the identical nature of fundamental particles etc. There are other cases in physics where we use this phenomenon (some cross section calculation life hacks come to mind).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11331.0,"score_ratio":3.4} {"post_id":"o2te2a","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"If your penis filled fit into the leaky hole at the bottom of a boat, could you pee out that hole? Does the size and displacement of the boat matter? Okay there was an obviously silly item posted in r\/ShittyLifeProTips about stoping a boat from sinking by plugging the hole with your penis, drinking the bilge water, and then peeing it out: https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/ShittyLifeProTips\/comments\/o1l4vq\/slpt\\_they\\_say\\_you\\_learn\\_something\\_new\\_every\\_day\/ But this got me thinking, what set of equations determines the pressure of an incoming leak at the bottom of a boat? I'm assuming it has something to do with the Archemedian displacement, but I don't have a sense of whether or how this relates to the incoming pressure. Second, is the human bladder capable of exerting enough pressure to overcome the pressure at the leak in order to pee out the hole? What are the balance of forces at work?","c_root_id_A":"h288how","c_root_id_B":"h285io3","created_at_utc_A":1624035276,"created_at_utc_B":1624033974,"score_A":173,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You can estimate this yourself by peeing straight upward, measuring the maximum relative height h, using Bernoulli's law to calculate the pressure head, and comparing this to the hydrostatic pressure of the water at the depth of interest. Or just comparing the corresponding height and depth. Edit: A look at the literature indicates that bladder gauge pressure can be on the order of 10 kPa (example). This is equivalent to only 1 m depth (P\/g\u03c1) if you're not submerged and peeing into a submerged region. (Correspondingly, most people can't pee much higher than 1 m.)","human_ref_B":"You can pee underwater, so you can pee through the hole in theory.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1302.0,"score_ratio":34.6} {"post_id":"o2te2a","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"If your penis filled fit into the leaky hole at the bottom of a boat, could you pee out that hole? Does the size and displacement of the boat matter? Okay there was an obviously silly item posted in r\/ShittyLifeProTips about stoping a boat from sinking by plugging the hole with your penis, drinking the bilge water, and then peeing it out: https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/ShittyLifeProTips\/comments\/o1l4vq\/slpt\\_they\\_say\\_you\\_learn\\_something\\_new\\_every\\_day\/ But this got me thinking, what set of equations determines the pressure of an incoming leak at the bottom of a boat? I'm assuming it has something to do with the Archemedian displacement, but I don't have a sense of whether or how this relates to the incoming pressure. Second, is the human bladder capable of exerting enough pressure to overcome the pressure at the leak in order to pee out the hole? What are the balance of forces at work?","c_root_id_A":"h285io3","c_root_id_B":"h28qv7q","created_at_utc_A":1624033974,"created_at_utc_B":1624043553,"score_A":5,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"You can pee underwater, so you can pee through the hole in theory.","human_ref_B":"I believe in r\/theydidthemath someone actually asked this and it was answered? I\u2019ll see if I can find the link Edit: here\u2019s the link - https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/theydidthemath\/comments\/o105q2\/request_how_long_would_it_take_to_remove_a_leak\/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9579.0,"score_ratio":3.4} {"post_id":"o2te2a","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"If your penis filled fit into the leaky hole at the bottom of a boat, could you pee out that hole? Does the size and displacement of the boat matter? Okay there was an obviously silly item posted in r\/ShittyLifeProTips about stoping a boat from sinking by plugging the hole with your penis, drinking the bilge water, and then peeing it out: https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/ShittyLifeProTips\/comments\/o1l4vq\/slpt\\_they\\_say\\_you\\_learn\\_something\\_new\\_every\\_day\/ But this got me thinking, what set of equations determines the pressure of an incoming leak at the bottom of a boat? I'm assuming it has something to do with the Archemedian displacement, but I don't have a sense of whether or how this relates to the incoming pressure. Second, is the human bladder capable of exerting enough pressure to overcome the pressure at the leak in order to pee out the hole? What are the balance of forces at work?","c_root_id_A":"h298onj","c_root_id_B":"h28v8p5","created_at_utc_A":1624051723,"created_at_utc_B":1624045556,"score_A":15,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This thread has made me wonder - Do they flush the toilets underwater in submarines, and if so, how? ​ edit: google tells me they have an on board sewerage tank which gets pressurised to above 400psi once it's near full, so that it can be expelled into the ocean depths.","human_ref_B":"Food for Fishes Lol","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6167.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"o2te2a","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"If your penis filled fit into the leaky hole at the bottom of a boat, could you pee out that hole? Does the size and displacement of the boat matter? Okay there was an obviously silly item posted in r\/ShittyLifeProTips about stoping a boat from sinking by plugging the hole with your penis, drinking the bilge water, and then peeing it out: https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/ShittyLifeProTips\/comments\/o1l4vq\/slpt\\_they\\_say\\_you\\_learn\\_something\\_new\\_every\\_day\/ But this got me thinking, what set of equations determines the pressure of an incoming leak at the bottom of a boat? I'm assuming it has something to do with the Archemedian displacement, but I don't have a sense of whether or how this relates to the incoming pressure. Second, is the human bladder capable of exerting enough pressure to overcome the pressure at the leak in order to pee out the hole? What are the balance of forces at work?","c_root_id_A":"h285io3","c_root_id_B":"h298onj","created_at_utc_A":1624033974,"created_at_utc_B":1624051723,"score_A":5,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"You can pee underwater, so you can pee through the hole in theory.","human_ref_B":"This thread has made me wonder - Do they flush the toilets underwater in submarines, and if so, how? ​ edit: google tells me they have an on board sewerage tank which gets pressurised to above 400psi once it's near full, so that it can be expelled into the ocean depths.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17749.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"jta7f0","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How difficult was the jump from undergrad to grad school for you? I'm a few months into a Master's program now, and I can honestly say that I've never felt so challenged in my life. I fully expected an increase in difficulty from undergrad, but this jump has far exceeded my expectations. I feel like I could learn all of this material - like it's within my abilities, but the pace is just far faster than I know how to handle. I'm sorta getting by, but I feel completely lost 99% of the time. I question if perhaps my undergrad was easier than most undergrad programs, and might have left me a bit unprepared for this. I don't know.","c_root_id_A":"gc4imp8","c_root_id_B":"gc4kfy6","created_at_utc_A":1605243319,"created_at_utc_B":1605244615,"score_A":11,"score_B":140,"human_ref_A":"Is your first term online? I just started second year (undergrad) and have learnt nothing so far except how to try to submit assignments on time. Taking 6 online courses is the worst I've had to deal with in 2020.","human_ref_B":"I took the \u201cBig Three\u201d (E&M, classical, and quantum) at my grad school as a first year. I was *that guy* in undergrad, doing my homework fast and intuitively \u2014 and other peoples\u2019 besides. In grad school I found myself slipping behind. Weekly problem sets might have 40 pages. I felt that I was suddenly just too stupid to do any of this stuff. I remember visiting with my academic advisor and telling him I thought I had to drop out. Then I realized that the problem sets were designed with group effort in mind. You pretty much had to solve them in groups \u2014 something I had never tried before. That made the difference between floundering and swimming strongly. I went on to graduate and have been working as a professional astrophysicist for 25 years.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1296.0,"score_ratio":12.7272727273} {"post_id":"jta7f0","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How difficult was the jump from undergrad to grad school for you? I'm a few months into a Master's program now, and I can honestly say that I've never felt so challenged in my life. I fully expected an increase in difficulty from undergrad, but this jump has far exceeded my expectations. I feel like I could learn all of this material - like it's within my abilities, but the pace is just far faster than I know how to handle. I'm sorta getting by, but I feel completely lost 99% of the time. I question if perhaps my undergrad was easier than most undergrad programs, and might have left me a bit unprepared for this. I don't know.","c_root_id_A":"gc4kfy6","c_root_id_B":"gc4jz6w","created_at_utc_A":1605244615,"created_at_utc_B":1605244276,"score_A":140,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I took the \u201cBig Three\u201d (E&M, classical, and quantum) at my grad school as a first year. I was *that guy* in undergrad, doing my homework fast and intuitively \u2014 and other peoples\u2019 besides. In grad school I found myself slipping behind. Weekly problem sets might have 40 pages. I felt that I was suddenly just too stupid to do any of this stuff. I remember visiting with my academic advisor and telling him I thought I had to drop out. Then I realized that the problem sets were designed with group effort in mind. You pretty much had to solve them in groups \u2014 something I had never tried before. That made the difference between floundering and swimming strongly. I went on to graduate and have been working as a professional astrophysicist for 25 years.","human_ref_B":"I spent a lot more time on coursework in graduate school, but I wouldn't say my first semester as a grad student was significantly *harder* than my last year of undergrad. The undergrad physics degree option I took at my university was designed with the idea of preparing students for graduate school, so I had to take more advanced physics courses. That might have made me moderately more prepared than a typical incoming graduate student.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":339.0,"score_ratio":15.5555555556} {"post_id":"jta7f0","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How difficult was the jump from undergrad to grad school for you? I'm a few months into a Master's program now, and I can honestly say that I've never felt so challenged in my life. I fully expected an increase in difficulty from undergrad, but this jump has far exceeded my expectations. I feel like I could learn all of this material - like it's within my abilities, but the pace is just far faster than I know how to handle. I'm sorta getting by, but I feel completely lost 99% of the time. I question if perhaps my undergrad was easier than most undergrad programs, and might have left me a bit unprepared for this. I don't know.","c_root_id_A":"gc58cf3","c_root_id_B":"gc4imp8","created_at_utc_A":1605267906,"created_at_utc_B":1605243319,"score_A":17,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I remember being surprised at how small a jump there was from high school to undergrad. The first semester of undergrad physics was basically a review of high school - we only did like 1 or 2 weeks of new content. Undergrad physics tends to be very structured, so if you know how to follow instructions, complete and review the assignments and practice tests, you can do very well without too much brain power. Grad school is a huge step up now. You don't have a strict calendar of assignments and exams. You just have a big glob of work to do. Suddenly you have to do all the structuring yourself. You can make utterly wrong turns and waste lots of time. In undergrad, you're told how to do something, you practise doing it, and then you get tested on doing it. If it comes out really complicated, it's because you aren't doing it right - it's almost like solving a sudoku, if it's unsolvable, then you've made a mistake. But in grad school, sometimes there really are things you can't do right now, or can't do that way, or things that you'll do wrong for months because you aren't being tested on how to do it, or things that you realise will take more time and effort than you thought, but you've already committed months into it. So yeah, I did also find grad school was a huge step up, after a fairly unchallenging undergrad.","human_ref_B":"Is your first term online? I just started second year (undergrad) and have learnt nothing so far except how to try to submit assignments on time. Taking 6 online courses is the worst I've had to deal with in 2020.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24587.0,"score_ratio":1.5454545455} {"post_id":"jta7f0","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How difficult was the jump from undergrad to grad school for you? I'm a few months into a Master's program now, and I can honestly say that I've never felt so challenged in my life. I fully expected an increase in difficulty from undergrad, but this jump has far exceeded my expectations. I feel like I could learn all of this material - like it's within my abilities, but the pace is just far faster than I know how to handle. I'm sorta getting by, but I feel completely lost 99% of the time. I question if perhaps my undergrad was easier than most undergrad programs, and might have left me a bit unprepared for this. I don't know.","c_root_id_A":"gc58cf3","c_root_id_B":"gc4jz6w","created_at_utc_A":1605267906,"created_at_utc_B":1605244276,"score_A":17,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I remember being surprised at how small a jump there was from high school to undergrad. The first semester of undergrad physics was basically a review of high school - we only did like 1 or 2 weeks of new content. Undergrad physics tends to be very structured, so if you know how to follow instructions, complete and review the assignments and practice tests, you can do very well without too much brain power. Grad school is a huge step up now. You don't have a strict calendar of assignments and exams. You just have a big glob of work to do. Suddenly you have to do all the structuring yourself. You can make utterly wrong turns and waste lots of time. In undergrad, you're told how to do something, you practise doing it, and then you get tested on doing it. If it comes out really complicated, it's because you aren't doing it right - it's almost like solving a sudoku, if it's unsolvable, then you've made a mistake. But in grad school, sometimes there really are things you can't do right now, or can't do that way, or things that you'll do wrong for months because you aren't being tested on how to do it, or things that you realise will take more time and effort than you thought, but you've already committed months into it. So yeah, I did also find grad school was a huge step up, after a fairly unchallenging undergrad.","human_ref_B":"I spent a lot more time on coursework in graduate school, but I wouldn't say my first semester as a grad student was significantly *harder* than my last year of undergrad. The undergrad physics degree option I took at my university was designed with the idea of preparing students for graduate school, so I had to take more advanced physics courses. That might have made me moderately more prepared than a typical incoming graduate student.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23630.0,"score_ratio":1.8888888889} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii5h7ji","c_root_id_B":"ii4tldm","created_at_utc_A":1659115121,"created_at_utc_B":1659106023,"score_A":318,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"I'm sorry about all the dismissive and snarky answers that you're getting. Your question is actually a pretty interesting one, and the people answering mockingly are just being ignorant in not being willing to actually engage with your question. To answer your question, you should first think of what a simulation actually is: it's just a model that imitates the properties of another one. When you do a computer simulation (and those are not the only ones) you're feeding your computer the properties of the system you're simulating through the programming language you're using, which then are translated to sets of mathematical operations on binary states. So, first thing to consider: there are inefficiencies associated with having to translate those properties into machine operations. The process you're trying to simulate probably doesn't map very well to mathematical operations in binary, that's why you end with numerical errors, and why it takes so much effort for a computer to perform the simulation. (And its the reason why quantum simulations are a thing). Second thing to consider: if the computer solves problems by performing its basic math operations on binary states, how does the universe \"solve\" those same problems? Well, instead of bits you have the actual bodies you're considering, and instead of the basic math operations performed on those bits you have the physical laws which rule the universe. So, what's the conclusion? The \"computational power\" you're seeking in the physical universe is basically contained in the actual physical objects and physical laws, instead of operations on millions of bits you have physical laws acting on millions of particles.","human_ref_B":"Average Computer Science student trying physics Sorry, bad interdisciplinary jokes aside, just because maths and computation is the language that we use to describe and predict reality doesn't mean that they are required for reality to exist. The laws of nature do not require simulation, they simply are. That's what physicists study. If this is not satisfactory for you, then head over to r\/askphilosophy","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9098.0,"score_ratio":4.96875} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii5h7ji","c_root_id_B":"ii4s81u","created_at_utc_A":1659115121,"created_at_utc_B":1659105480,"score_A":318,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"I'm sorry about all the dismissive and snarky answers that you're getting. Your question is actually a pretty interesting one, and the people answering mockingly are just being ignorant in not being willing to actually engage with your question. To answer your question, you should first think of what a simulation actually is: it's just a model that imitates the properties of another one. When you do a computer simulation (and those are not the only ones) you're feeding your computer the properties of the system you're simulating through the programming language you're using, which then are translated to sets of mathematical operations on binary states. So, first thing to consider: there are inefficiencies associated with having to translate those properties into machine operations. The process you're trying to simulate probably doesn't map very well to mathematical operations in binary, that's why you end with numerical errors, and why it takes so much effort for a computer to perform the simulation. (And its the reason why quantum simulations are a thing). Second thing to consider: if the computer solves problems by performing its basic math operations on binary states, how does the universe \"solve\" those same problems? Well, instead of bits you have the actual bodies you're considering, and instead of the basic math operations performed on those bits you have the physical laws which rule the universe. So, what's the conclusion? The \"computational power\" you're seeking in the physical universe is basically contained in the actual physical objects and physical laws, instead of operations on millions of bits you have physical laws acting on millions of particles.","human_ref_B":"Snark aside, the atmosphere actually contains all of the relevant degrees of freedom. Suppose you want to figure out what happens with just a single point particle's motion, then you \"just\" need to solve newton's laws for the 3 position coordinates. That is to say you need to solve equations which describe and store at least 3 double precision floating point numbers. If you model the atmosphere as just a bunch of little tiny balls, how many floating point numbers do you need? Presumably *at least* ~= 10^(40). There exists no machine now or at any point in the foreseeable future with that storage capability. But there *are* that many particles in the atmosphere, and they *do* interact with each other, so there's no need to simulate it. You can get away with simplifying assumptions, but each simplification you make reduces some of your predictive capability. You can be very very clever and make a bunch of simplifications and get the problem small enough to fit on supercomputers, but in doing so you'll only be able to predict so far forward in the future and only on sufficiently large scales, and only with some fairly substantial uncertainties.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9641.0,"score_ratio":6.7659574468} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii57fcs","c_root_id_B":"ii5h7ji","created_at_utc_A":1659111364,"created_at_utc_B":1659115121,"score_A":16,"score_B":318,"human_ref_A":"Consider this reformulation of your question, why do mountains exist without a mouth or language and yet we need both to describe them? There's a difference between a description (be it in plain English or mathematical models) and the thing itself.","human_ref_B":"I'm sorry about all the dismissive and snarky answers that you're getting. Your question is actually a pretty interesting one, and the people answering mockingly are just being ignorant in not being willing to actually engage with your question. To answer your question, you should first think of what a simulation actually is: it's just a model that imitates the properties of another one. When you do a computer simulation (and those are not the only ones) you're feeding your computer the properties of the system you're simulating through the programming language you're using, which then are translated to sets of mathematical operations on binary states. So, first thing to consider: there are inefficiencies associated with having to translate those properties into machine operations. The process you're trying to simulate probably doesn't map very well to mathematical operations in binary, that's why you end with numerical errors, and why it takes so much effort for a computer to perform the simulation. (And its the reason why quantum simulations are a thing). Second thing to consider: if the computer solves problems by performing its basic math operations on binary states, how does the universe \"solve\" those same problems? Well, instead of bits you have the actual bodies you're considering, and instead of the basic math operations performed on those bits you have the physical laws which rule the universe. So, what's the conclusion? The \"computational power\" you're seeking in the physical universe is basically contained in the actual physical objects and physical laws, instead of operations on millions of bits you have physical laws acting on millions of particles.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3757.0,"score_ratio":19.875} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii4pp4q","c_root_id_B":"ii5h7ji","created_at_utc_A":1659104464,"created_at_utc_B":1659115121,"score_A":14,"score_B":318,"human_ref_A":"Because the universe isn't a computer simulation...","human_ref_B":"I'm sorry about all the dismissive and snarky answers that you're getting. Your question is actually a pretty interesting one, and the people answering mockingly are just being ignorant in not being willing to actually engage with your question. To answer your question, you should first think of what a simulation actually is: it's just a model that imitates the properties of another one. When you do a computer simulation (and those are not the only ones) you're feeding your computer the properties of the system you're simulating through the programming language you're using, which then are translated to sets of mathematical operations on binary states. So, first thing to consider: there are inefficiencies associated with having to translate those properties into machine operations. The process you're trying to simulate probably doesn't map very well to mathematical operations in binary, that's why you end with numerical errors, and why it takes so much effort for a computer to perform the simulation. (And its the reason why quantum simulations are a thing). Second thing to consider: if the computer solves problems by performing its basic math operations on binary states, how does the universe \"solve\" those same problems? Well, instead of bits you have the actual bodies you're considering, and instead of the basic math operations performed on those bits you have the physical laws which rule the universe. So, what's the conclusion? The \"computational power\" you're seeking in the physical universe is basically contained in the actual physical objects and physical laws, instead of operations on millions of bits you have physical laws acting on millions of particles.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10657.0,"score_ratio":22.7142857143} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii5h7ji","c_root_id_B":"ii54lqu","created_at_utc_A":1659115121,"created_at_utc_B":1659110281,"score_A":318,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I'm sorry about all the dismissive and snarky answers that you're getting. Your question is actually a pretty interesting one, and the people answering mockingly are just being ignorant in not being willing to actually engage with your question. To answer your question, you should first think of what a simulation actually is: it's just a model that imitates the properties of another one. When you do a computer simulation (and those are not the only ones) you're feeding your computer the properties of the system you're simulating through the programming language you're using, which then are translated to sets of mathematical operations on binary states. So, first thing to consider: there are inefficiencies associated with having to translate those properties into machine operations. The process you're trying to simulate probably doesn't map very well to mathematical operations in binary, that's why you end with numerical errors, and why it takes so much effort for a computer to perform the simulation. (And its the reason why quantum simulations are a thing). Second thing to consider: if the computer solves problems by performing its basic math operations on binary states, how does the universe \"solve\" those same problems? Well, instead of bits you have the actual bodies you're considering, and instead of the basic math operations performed on those bits you have the physical laws which rule the universe. So, what's the conclusion? The \"computational power\" you're seeking in the physical universe is basically contained in the actual physical objects and physical laws, instead of operations on millions of bits you have physical laws acting on millions of particles.","human_ref_B":"How do you define \"computational power\" and why do you believe that atoms moving around do not constitute computation? > The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself Right, and therefor it does have computational power, at least with any reasonable definition of that term that I can think of.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4840.0,"score_ratio":21.2} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii59tut","c_root_id_B":"ii5h7ji","created_at_utc_A":1659112277,"created_at_utc_B":1659115121,"score_A":11,"score_B":318,"human_ref_A":"The map is not the territory.","human_ref_B":"I'm sorry about all the dismissive and snarky answers that you're getting. Your question is actually a pretty interesting one, and the people answering mockingly are just being ignorant in not being willing to actually engage with your question. To answer your question, you should first think of what a simulation actually is: it's just a model that imitates the properties of another one. When you do a computer simulation (and those are not the only ones) you're feeding your computer the properties of the system you're simulating through the programming language you're using, which then are translated to sets of mathematical operations on binary states. So, first thing to consider: there are inefficiencies associated with having to translate those properties into machine operations. The process you're trying to simulate probably doesn't map very well to mathematical operations in binary, that's why you end with numerical errors, and why it takes so much effort for a computer to perform the simulation. (And its the reason why quantum simulations are a thing). Second thing to consider: if the computer solves problems by performing its basic math operations on binary states, how does the universe \"solve\" those same problems? Well, instead of bits you have the actual bodies you're considering, and instead of the basic math operations performed on those bits you have the physical laws which rule the universe. So, what's the conclusion? The \"computational power\" you're seeking in the physical universe is basically contained in the actual physical objects and physical laws, instead of operations on millions of bits you have physical laws acting on millions of particles.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2844.0,"score_ratio":28.9090909091} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii4u6fk","c_root_id_B":"ii5h7ji","created_at_utc_A":1659106252,"created_at_utc_B":1659115121,"score_A":4,"score_B":318,"human_ref_A":"The universe is rigid fixed version of a simulation. A simulation is extremely flexible, it can run forward or reverse it can be stopped it can be sped up it can be slowed down, it can make things disappear it can create things, it can change any laws without limitation. All this unlimited flexibility and universality comes at a computational price. Of course unless we live in a simulation.","human_ref_B":"I'm sorry about all the dismissive and snarky answers that you're getting. Your question is actually a pretty interesting one, and the people answering mockingly are just being ignorant in not being willing to actually engage with your question. To answer your question, you should first think of what a simulation actually is: it's just a model that imitates the properties of another one. When you do a computer simulation (and those are not the only ones) you're feeding your computer the properties of the system you're simulating through the programming language you're using, which then are translated to sets of mathematical operations on binary states. So, first thing to consider: there are inefficiencies associated with having to translate those properties into machine operations. The process you're trying to simulate probably doesn't map very well to mathematical operations in binary, that's why you end with numerical errors, and why it takes so much effort for a computer to perform the simulation. (And its the reason why quantum simulations are a thing). Second thing to consider: if the computer solves problems by performing its basic math operations on binary states, how does the universe \"solve\" those same problems? Well, instead of bits you have the actual bodies you're considering, and instead of the basic math operations performed on those bits you have the physical laws which rule the universe. So, what's the conclusion? The \"computational power\" you're seeking in the physical universe is basically contained in the actual physical objects and physical laws, instead of operations on millions of bits you have physical laws acting on millions of particles.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8869.0,"score_ratio":79.5} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii5dnpb","c_root_id_B":"ii5h7ji","created_at_utc_A":1659113745,"created_at_utc_B":1659115121,"score_A":2,"score_B":318,"human_ref_A":"Nature doesn\u2019t need a supercomputer *as far as we know*","human_ref_B":"I'm sorry about all the dismissive and snarky answers that you're getting. Your question is actually a pretty interesting one, and the people answering mockingly are just being ignorant in not being willing to actually engage with your question. To answer your question, you should first think of what a simulation actually is: it's just a model that imitates the properties of another one. When you do a computer simulation (and those are not the only ones) you're feeding your computer the properties of the system you're simulating through the programming language you're using, which then are translated to sets of mathematical operations on binary states. So, first thing to consider: there are inefficiencies associated with having to translate those properties into machine operations. The process you're trying to simulate probably doesn't map very well to mathematical operations in binary, that's why you end with numerical errors, and why it takes so much effort for a computer to perform the simulation. (And its the reason why quantum simulations are a thing). Second thing to consider: if the computer solves problems by performing its basic math operations on binary states, how does the universe \"solve\" those same problems? Well, instead of bits you have the actual bodies you're considering, and instead of the basic math operations performed on those bits you have the physical laws which rule the universe. So, what's the conclusion? The \"computational power\" you're seeking in the physical universe is basically contained in the actual physical objects and physical laws, instead of operations on millions of bits you have physical laws acting on millions of particles.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1376.0,"score_ratio":159.0} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii4s81u","c_root_id_B":"ii4tldm","created_at_utc_A":1659105480,"created_at_utc_B":1659106023,"score_A":47,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"Snark aside, the atmosphere actually contains all of the relevant degrees of freedom. Suppose you want to figure out what happens with just a single point particle's motion, then you \"just\" need to solve newton's laws for the 3 position coordinates. That is to say you need to solve equations which describe and store at least 3 double precision floating point numbers. If you model the atmosphere as just a bunch of little tiny balls, how many floating point numbers do you need? Presumably *at least* ~= 10^(40). There exists no machine now or at any point in the foreseeable future with that storage capability. But there *are* that many particles in the atmosphere, and they *do* interact with each other, so there's no need to simulate it. You can get away with simplifying assumptions, but each simplification you make reduces some of your predictive capability. You can be very very clever and make a bunch of simplifications and get the problem small enough to fit on supercomputers, but in doing so you'll only be able to predict so far forward in the future and only on sufficiently large scales, and only with some fairly substantial uncertainties.","human_ref_B":"Average Computer Science student trying physics Sorry, bad interdisciplinary jokes aside, just because maths and computation is the language that we use to describe and predict reality doesn't mean that they are required for reality to exist. The laws of nature do not require simulation, they simply are. That's what physicists study. If this is not satisfactory for you, then head over to r\/askphilosophy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":543.0,"score_ratio":1.3617021277} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii4tldm","c_root_id_B":"ii4pp4q","created_at_utc_A":1659106023,"created_at_utc_B":1659104464,"score_A":64,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Average Computer Science student trying physics Sorry, bad interdisciplinary jokes aside, just because maths and computation is the language that we use to describe and predict reality doesn't mean that they are required for reality to exist. The laws of nature do not require simulation, they simply are. That's what physicists study. If this is not satisfactory for you, then head over to r\/askphilosophy","human_ref_B":"Because the universe isn't a computer simulation...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1559.0,"score_ratio":4.5714285714} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii4pp4q","c_root_id_B":"ii4s81u","created_at_utc_A":1659104464,"created_at_utc_B":1659105480,"score_A":14,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"Because the universe isn't a computer simulation...","human_ref_B":"Snark aside, the atmosphere actually contains all of the relevant degrees of freedom. Suppose you want to figure out what happens with just a single point particle's motion, then you \"just\" need to solve newton's laws for the 3 position coordinates. That is to say you need to solve equations which describe and store at least 3 double precision floating point numbers. If you model the atmosphere as just a bunch of little tiny balls, how many floating point numbers do you need? Presumably *at least* ~= 10^(40). There exists no machine now or at any point in the foreseeable future with that storage capability. But there *are* that many particles in the atmosphere, and they *do* interact with each other, so there's no need to simulate it. You can get away with simplifying assumptions, but each simplification you make reduces some of your predictive capability. You can be very very clever and make a bunch of simplifications and get the problem small enough to fit on supercomputers, but in doing so you'll only be able to predict so far forward in the future and only on sufficiently large scales, and only with some fairly substantial uncertainties.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1016.0,"score_ratio":3.3571428571} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii4pp4q","c_root_id_B":"ii57fcs","created_at_utc_A":1659104464,"created_at_utc_B":1659111364,"score_A":14,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Because the universe isn't a computer simulation...","human_ref_B":"Consider this reformulation of your question, why do mountains exist without a mouth or language and yet we need both to describe them? There's a difference between a description (be it in plain English or mathematical models) and the thing itself.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6900.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii57fcs","c_root_id_B":"ii54lqu","created_at_utc_A":1659111364,"created_at_utc_B":1659110281,"score_A":16,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Consider this reformulation of your question, why do mountains exist without a mouth or language and yet we need both to describe them? There's a difference between a description (be it in plain English or mathematical models) and the thing itself.","human_ref_B":"How do you define \"computational power\" and why do you believe that atoms moving around do not constitute computation? > The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself Right, and therefor it does have computational power, at least with any reasonable definition of that term that I can think of.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1083.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii57fcs","c_root_id_B":"ii4u6fk","created_at_utc_A":1659111364,"created_at_utc_B":1659106252,"score_A":16,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Consider this reformulation of your question, why do mountains exist without a mouth or language and yet we need both to describe them? There's a difference between a description (be it in plain English or mathematical models) and the thing itself.","human_ref_B":"The universe is rigid fixed version of a simulation. A simulation is extremely flexible, it can run forward or reverse it can be stopped it can be sped up it can be slowed down, it can make things disappear it can create things, it can change any laws without limitation. All this unlimited flexibility and universality comes at a computational price. Of course unless we live in a simulation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5112.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii54lqu","c_root_id_B":"ii4pp4q","created_at_utc_A":1659110281,"created_at_utc_B":1659104464,"score_A":15,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"How do you define \"computational power\" and why do you believe that atoms moving around do not constitute computation? > The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself Right, and therefor it does have computational power, at least with any reasonable definition of that term that I can think of.","human_ref_B":"Because the universe isn't a computer simulation...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5817.0,"score_ratio":1.0714285714} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii54lqu","c_root_id_B":"ii4u6fk","created_at_utc_A":1659110281,"created_at_utc_B":1659106252,"score_A":15,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"How do you define \"computational power\" and why do you believe that atoms moving around do not constitute computation? > The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself Right, and therefor it does have computational power, at least with any reasonable definition of that term that I can think of.","human_ref_B":"The universe is rigid fixed version of a simulation. A simulation is extremely flexible, it can run forward or reverse it can be stopped it can be sped up it can be slowed down, it can make things disappear it can create things, it can change any laws without limitation. All this unlimited flexibility and universality comes at a computational price. Of course unless we live in a simulation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4029.0,"score_ratio":3.75} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii4u6fk","c_root_id_B":"ii59tut","created_at_utc_A":1659106252,"created_at_utc_B":1659112277,"score_A":4,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"The universe is rigid fixed version of a simulation. A simulation is extremely flexible, it can run forward or reverse it can be stopped it can be sped up it can be slowed down, it can make things disappear it can create things, it can change any laws without limitation. All this unlimited flexibility and universality comes at a computational price. Of course unless we live in a simulation.","human_ref_B":"The map is not the territory.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6025.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii62mz4","c_root_id_B":"ii6bo9d","created_at_utc_A":1659123603,"created_at_utc_B":1659127274,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Think about it like this: You want a Super Nintendo. But suppose you don't have one because they haven't been made for decades, so you build a Super Nintendo emulator. What you need to do is, find out all the hardware specs of the Super Nintendo. What was the processor? How did it work? How many registers? What operations was it capable of? Etc, etc, etc. And you need to program a simulation of all of those things. Because you don't have the stacks, registers, etc. of the actual SNES processor. You're building virtual representations of them inside an emulation software. That poses some additional overhead. All of that simulation overhead requires computational power. It's always going to be less efficient to emulate hardware than it is to actually have the hardware. Same with the universe in general. You could have the actual universe, doing its thing. Or you can painstakingly emulate it, which is going to require vast computational resources.","human_ref_B":"So this comes down to how we define \"computer\". If we use a **very** general definition of \"a system that can perform a series of operations on or with information\", then it doesn't become farfetched to interpret natural law as a sort of computer. Information is an inherent property of all physical systems. Classically defined in terms of Shannon entropy and within quantum mechanics defined in terms of Von Neumann entropy. Information densities can move and transform over time, and we can interpret this as a sort of natural calculation. That is, in natural processes such as atmospheric mechanics, information densities evolve over time in an analogous fashion to a simulation run on a manmade computer. The big difference is that actual physics is going to always be inherently **far** more computationally efficient than a simulation will be due to having more degrees of freedom to work with and a simulation inherently being dependent upon actual underlying physics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3671.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii6bo9d","c_root_id_B":"ii4u6fk","created_at_utc_A":1659127274,"created_at_utc_B":1659106252,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"So this comes down to how we define \"computer\". If we use a **very** general definition of \"a system that can perform a series of operations on or with information\", then it doesn't become farfetched to interpret natural law as a sort of computer. Information is an inherent property of all physical systems. Classically defined in terms of Shannon entropy and within quantum mechanics defined in terms of Von Neumann entropy. Information densities can move and transform over time, and we can interpret this as a sort of natural calculation. That is, in natural processes such as atmospheric mechanics, information densities evolve over time in an analogous fashion to a simulation run on a manmade computer. The big difference is that actual physics is going to always be inherently **far** more computationally efficient than a simulation will be due to having more degrees of freedom to work with and a simulation inherently being dependent upon actual underlying physics.","human_ref_B":"The universe is rigid fixed version of a simulation. A simulation is extremely flexible, it can run forward or reverse it can be stopped it can be sped up it can be slowed down, it can make things disappear it can create things, it can change any laws without limitation. All this unlimited flexibility and universality comes at a computational price. Of course unless we live in a simulation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21022.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii6bo9d","c_root_id_B":"ii5dnpb","created_at_utc_A":1659127274,"created_at_utc_B":1659113745,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So this comes down to how we define \"computer\". If we use a **very** general definition of \"a system that can perform a series of operations on or with information\", then it doesn't become farfetched to interpret natural law as a sort of computer. Information is an inherent property of all physical systems. Classically defined in terms of Shannon entropy and within quantum mechanics defined in terms of Von Neumann entropy. Information densities can move and transform over time, and we can interpret this as a sort of natural calculation. That is, in natural processes such as atmospheric mechanics, information densities evolve over time in an analogous fashion to a simulation run on a manmade computer. The big difference is that actual physics is going to always be inherently **far** more computationally efficient than a simulation will be due to having more degrees of freedom to work with and a simulation inherently being dependent upon actual underlying physics.","human_ref_B":"Nature doesn\u2019t need a supercomputer *as far as we know*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13529.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii5dnpb","c_root_id_B":"ii62mz4","created_at_utc_A":1659113745,"created_at_utc_B":1659123603,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Nature doesn\u2019t need a supercomputer *as far as we know*","human_ref_B":"Think about it like this: You want a Super Nintendo. But suppose you don't have one because they haven't been made for decades, so you build a Super Nintendo emulator. What you need to do is, find out all the hardware specs of the Super Nintendo. What was the processor? How did it work? How many registers? What operations was it capable of? Etc, etc, etc. And you need to program a simulation of all of those things. Because you don't have the stacks, registers, etc. of the actual SNES processor. You're building virtual representations of them inside an emulation software. That poses some additional overhead. All of that simulation overhead requires computational power. It's always going to be less efficient to emulate hardware than it is to actually have the hardware. Same with the universe in general. You could have the actual universe, doing its thing. Or you can painstakingly emulate it, which is going to require vast computational resources.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9858.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii6tyzc","c_root_id_B":"ii5dnpb","created_at_utc_A":1659135087,"created_at_utc_B":1659113745,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The atmosphere does not serve as a simulation of itself. Simulation of X is something that is not X. So, nothing can be a simulation of itself - because nothing can not be itself. Every physical process contains some kind of work. Computational power is simply the amount of work needed to realize physical processes distinct from X, but isomorphic to X. That amount, and that kind of work is not needed for the realization of X because X is a different kind of process from the computational simulation of X.","human_ref_B":"Nature doesn\u2019t need a supercomputer *as far as we know*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21342.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"wb60ge","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why doesn't nature require computational power, but simulations of it do? It requires multiple supercomputers to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the real atmosphere which we experience day to day exists is not powered by any supercomputer, and has existed since before computers were invented. The atmosphere serves as a simulation of itself, but with none of the computational power required to simulate it. Why is it that we need computational power to simulate parts of the universe, but when the universe implements such things through the laws of physics, it does not need that computational power?","c_root_id_A":"ii5dnpb","c_root_id_B":"ii754zq","created_at_utc_A":1659113745,"created_at_utc_B":1659140279,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Nature doesn\u2019t need a supercomputer *as far as we know*","human_ref_B":"You have received questions related to the physics of the situation, but I think there is something to be said about the structure of your thought process. An argument that nature requires computational resources can be summarised as follows: * Simulations require computational resources * Nature is like a simulation * Therefore, Nature requires computational resources This is not meant to be a valid argument in propositional logic or anything like that, just a sketch. What we would need to do from here to complete the argument is identify what property P of simulations imply that they require computational resources, identify what properties Nature shares with simulations, and assert P is contained within those shared properties. From here, we have two approaches: (1) What property shared between Nature and simulations causes this intuition that \"Nature is like a simulation\", and does this property indeed imply that computational resources are required? (2) What property implies that computational resources are required for a simulation, and does Nature also share this property? These are open-ended questions. I suspect the answer you would give to (1) is some sense that information can be extracted from Nature through measurement, just as it can be extracted from a simulation. Whether a pendulum swings in a virtual world or in real life, I can measure its position at t=1s and get data for the angle it makes. But though this captures the \"Nature is like a simulation\" aspect, it does not follow that Nature requires computational resources, because the ability to extract data from a thing does not imply that that thing requires computational resource necessarily. For (2), one could put forward many different candidate properties of simulations. I might argue that simulations are run on a computer. But as you can see, this fails to fit the \"Nature is like a simulation\" step, because Nature is not run on a computer. This doesn't rule out the possibility that you could find another candidate property. The key thing is to not fall into the following false analogy fallacy: * Simulations require computational resources (because they have property P) * Nature is like a simulation (in that it shares a property Q which simulations also have) * Therefore, Nature also requires computational resources","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26534.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9opj2","c_root_id_B":"gz9oo69","created_at_utc_A":1621861719,"created_at_utc_B":1621861697,"score_A":57,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"My favorite quality in a teacher of any subject is excitement. No matter how I feel about a subject, if I\u2019m learning it from someone who is clearly passionate about it and excited to be sharing, I can\u2019t help but pay attention. As for the nerves and anxiety, I\u2019ve found in giving presentations, and I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve found this too, that preparation is the winning factor. Lots of good teachers and presenters seem calm and easygoing, but that\u2019s usually only achieved through preparation and practice. Good luck, you seem to care a lot about doing this the right way which tells me you\u2019ll do great.","human_ref_B":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22.0,"score_ratio":28.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9qbfu","c_root_id_B":"gz9q442","created_at_utc_A":1621862611,"created_at_utc_B":1621862500,"score_A":36,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"For gods\u2019 sake don\u2019t teach for the test. I know to some extent you have to, but Physics is one of the few sciences you can really see and test without a very fancy lab. Do more labs than paperwork and your students will be far more engaged","human_ref_B":"So I\u2019m going into my junior year of university, but my favorite teacher so far is probably my 12th grade physics teacher! He taught us \u201cadvanced concepts\u201d, which was essentially college level material without calculus. My advice would be to not just lecture from the textbook. One thing my professor would do was give us quick anecdotes about topics, like \u201cthis property of water being denser than Ice helps explain why some species of sea creatures survived during the ice age!\u201d He was always extremely excited about what he was teaching, like he was our friend that couldn\u2019t wait to tell us this cool new thing he learned. That enthusiasm and relevance to real life is what made me love that class above all. It also got me into engineering, because we had an end of semester project where we had to pick ANY topic that\u2019s related to physics, build SOMETHING that demonstrates that topic, and write a paper on it. Leaving it so open ended led to the students being able to use their creativity to make whatever they wanted. I made a very simple electrical generator with neodymium magnets and copper coils, one of my friends made a Java program that showed how solar cells worked, etc... So I know I may have gone in a tangent here but I guess what it boils down to is just be engaged with your students. Show them WHY physics is so cool and important, and spend some time in class away from the textbook and show them physics at work through anecdotes and\/or scientific discoveries. Maybe even utilize that physics project idea and let your students use creativity to build something, perhaps as a group project type thing! It may show them that their future is engineering or in a physics field, and it looks amazing on a college application! EDIT: I also saw a comment about \u2018bullshitting\u2019 and I kinda agree. When we asked my teacher a question he didn\u2019t know, instead of try and use his best judgement, we\u2019d discuss the topic, what we thought the answer could be as a class, and then he would tell us he would research it more and get back to us. I really loved this approach","labels":1,"seconds_difference":111.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9q5ga","c_root_id_B":"gz9qbfu","created_at_utc_A":1621862520,"created_at_utc_B":1621862611,"score_A":4,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"As noted: anxiety about teaching is normal. For most people it fades as you do it a bit, but there's always a little bit of something for each new class. My advice? Watch Walter Lewin's MIT lecture series. Obviously, physical constraints and a school board will prevent you from stealing most of his content -- but as a source of inspiration for how to engage students? Excellent. You likely have a designated outline of the material that needs to be taught, as dictated by the state. Combined with the AP test content list, that's what students \"need to know\" by the end. Ideally we'd like students to be more on the \"how to manipulate equations and get results\" rather than \"memorize every variation on the theme\". Anything else is specific to student needs, or general teaching advice.","human_ref_B":"For gods\u2019 sake don\u2019t teach for the test. I know to some extent you have to, but Physics is one of the few sciences you can really see and test without a very fancy lab. Do more labs than paperwork and your students will be far more engaged","labels":0,"seconds_difference":91.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gz9qbfu","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621862611,"score_A":2,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"For gods\u2019 sake don\u2019t teach for the test. I know to some extent you have to, but Physics is one of the few sciences you can really see and test without a very fancy lab. Do more labs than paperwork and your students will be far more engaged","labels":0,"seconds_difference":914.0,"score_ratio":18.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9s70o","c_root_id_B":"gz9q442","created_at_utc_A":1621863603,"created_at_utc_B":1621862500,"score_A":17,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Don't just show your students a final equation of something, show them how humans got there in the simplest way possible with everyday examples. Also, don't just tell them they need to learn something just because. Tell them how they can use their 12th grade physics skills when they are older. There are many.","human_ref_B":"So I\u2019m going into my junior year of university, but my favorite teacher so far is probably my 12th grade physics teacher! He taught us \u201cadvanced concepts\u201d, which was essentially college level material without calculus. My advice would be to not just lecture from the textbook. One thing my professor would do was give us quick anecdotes about topics, like \u201cthis property of water being denser than Ice helps explain why some species of sea creatures survived during the ice age!\u201d He was always extremely excited about what he was teaching, like he was our friend that couldn\u2019t wait to tell us this cool new thing he learned. That enthusiasm and relevance to real life is what made me love that class above all. It also got me into engineering, because we had an end of semester project where we had to pick ANY topic that\u2019s related to physics, build SOMETHING that demonstrates that topic, and write a paper on it. Leaving it so open ended led to the students being able to use their creativity to make whatever they wanted. I made a very simple electrical generator with neodymium magnets and copper coils, one of my friends made a Java program that showed how solar cells worked, etc... So I know I may have gone in a tangent here but I guess what it boils down to is just be engaged with your students. Show them WHY physics is so cool and important, and spend some time in class away from the textbook and show them physics at work through anecdotes and\/or scientific discoveries. Maybe even utilize that physics project idea and let your students use creativity to build something, perhaps as a group project type thing! It may show them that their future is engineering or in a physics field, and it looks amazing on a college application! EDIT: I also saw a comment about \u2018bullshitting\u2019 and I kinda agree. When we asked my teacher a question he didn\u2019t know, instead of try and use his best judgement, we\u2019d discuss the topic, what we thought the answer could be as a class, and then he would tell us he would research it more and get back to us. I really loved this approach","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1103.0,"score_ratio":2.125} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9s4dc","c_root_id_B":"gz9s70o","created_at_utc_A":1621863564,"created_at_utc_B":1621863603,"score_A":6,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"u\/Hiphoppapotamus has it right about being honest if you don't know something, I just wanted to add that if a student gives you a different answer than the book tells yout or says there's something wrong with the question or the textbook or something you've presented don't dismiss them out of hand and insist they're wrong and you or the book are right until you've checked and worked through it with the student to see what is going on. People make mistakes and typos and even textbooks and online materials contain mistakes, and unfortunately far too often I've heard of pupils being told they are wrong by the teacher when they're not. That can really sour a pupil on a subject and on school in general. Also when setting exercises don't just rely on the book answer, work through them yourself. Edit: second piece of advice: in my experience a lot of problems for pupils come from not fully understanding something really basic earlier on, maybe from math or another subject. If you see a pupil struggling with something it may not be your material but something earlier they're struggling with which your material assumes they already grasp. Basic trigonometry or simple vector concepts are common problems. Don't assume they know that stuff and be prepared to drill down with questions until you figure out what the problem is and then teach it to them again. tl;dr don't assume the teachers who taught them before you were competent!","human_ref_B":"Don't just show your students a final equation of something, show them how humans got there in the simplest way possible with everyday examples. Also, don't just tell them they need to learn something just because. Tell them how they can use their 12th grade physics skills when they are older. There are many.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":39.0,"score_ratio":2.8333333333} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9s70o","c_root_id_B":"gz9q5ga","created_at_utc_A":1621863603,"created_at_utc_B":1621862520,"score_A":17,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Don't just show your students a final equation of something, show them how humans got there in the simplest way possible with everyday examples. Also, don't just tell them they need to learn something just because. Tell them how they can use their 12th grade physics skills when they are older. There are many.","human_ref_B":"As noted: anxiety about teaching is normal. For most people it fades as you do it a bit, but there's always a little bit of something for each new class. My advice? Watch Walter Lewin's MIT lecture series. Obviously, physical constraints and a school board will prevent you from stealing most of his content -- but as a source of inspiration for how to engage students? Excellent. You likely have a designated outline of the material that needs to be taught, as dictated by the state. Combined with the AP test content list, that's what students \"need to know\" by the end. Ideally we'd like students to be more on the \"how to manipulate equations and get results\" rather than \"memorize every variation on the theme\". Anything else is specific to student needs, or general teaching advice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1083.0,"score_ratio":4.25} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9s70o","c_root_id_B":"gz9oo69","created_at_utc_A":1621863603,"created_at_utc_B":1621861697,"score_A":17,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Don't just show your students a final equation of something, show them how humans got there in the simplest way possible with everyday examples. Also, don't just tell them they need to learn something just because. Tell them how they can use their 12th grade physics skills when they are older. There are many.","human_ref_B":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1906.0,"score_ratio":8.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9q442","c_root_id_B":"gz9tdsq","created_at_utc_A":1621862500,"created_at_utc_B":1621864202,"score_A":8,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"So I\u2019m going into my junior year of university, but my favorite teacher so far is probably my 12th grade physics teacher! He taught us \u201cadvanced concepts\u201d, which was essentially college level material without calculus. My advice would be to not just lecture from the textbook. One thing my professor would do was give us quick anecdotes about topics, like \u201cthis property of water being denser than Ice helps explain why some species of sea creatures survived during the ice age!\u201d He was always extremely excited about what he was teaching, like he was our friend that couldn\u2019t wait to tell us this cool new thing he learned. That enthusiasm and relevance to real life is what made me love that class above all. It also got me into engineering, because we had an end of semester project where we had to pick ANY topic that\u2019s related to physics, build SOMETHING that demonstrates that topic, and write a paper on it. Leaving it so open ended led to the students being able to use their creativity to make whatever they wanted. I made a very simple electrical generator with neodymium magnets and copper coils, one of my friends made a Java program that showed how solar cells worked, etc... So I know I may have gone in a tangent here but I guess what it boils down to is just be engaged with your students. Show them WHY physics is so cool and important, and spend some time in class away from the textbook and show them physics at work through anecdotes and\/or scientific discoveries. Maybe even utilize that physics project idea and let your students use creativity to build something, perhaps as a group project type thing! It may show them that their future is engineering or in a physics field, and it looks amazing on a college application! EDIT: I also saw a comment about \u2018bullshitting\u2019 and I kinda agree. When we asked my teacher a question he didn\u2019t know, instead of try and use his best judgement, we\u2019d discuss the topic, what we thought the answer could be as a class, and then he would tell us he would research it more and get back to us. I really loved this approach","human_ref_B":"As someone in the same grade: **It is impossible for you to make every student in your class interested in physics.** In my experience, physics is one of those subjects (like math) that many students are just conditioned to dislike by the way our education system works. We would need a broader change in the way we teach to reverse that, and you shouldn't hold yourself responsible for that as one teacher. Plus, most of these students will be at the end of their high school career, and probably already have some ideas about what subjects they like and don't like. So just know that it's not a personal failing of yours if not every student in your class enjoys physics. Just do your best to share your love for the subject with your students and make sure they succeed, but don't hold yourself to impossible standards. You will be happier and better at teaching with that mentality. Obviously, I'm not saying to abandon unmotivated students. Just that you shouldn't let it get to your sense of self-worth as a teacher.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1702.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9s4dc","c_root_id_B":"gz9tdsq","created_at_utc_A":1621863564,"created_at_utc_B":1621864202,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"u\/Hiphoppapotamus has it right about being honest if you don't know something, I just wanted to add that if a student gives you a different answer than the book tells yout or says there's something wrong with the question or the textbook or something you've presented don't dismiss them out of hand and insist they're wrong and you or the book are right until you've checked and worked through it with the student to see what is going on. People make mistakes and typos and even textbooks and online materials contain mistakes, and unfortunately far too often I've heard of pupils being told they are wrong by the teacher when they're not. That can really sour a pupil on a subject and on school in general. Also when setting exercises don't just rely on the book answer, work through them yourself. Edit: second piece of advice: in my experience a lot of problems for pupils come from not fully understanding something really basic earlier on, maybe from math or another subject. If you see a pupil struggling with something it may not be your material but something earlier they're struggling with which your material assumes they already grasp. Basic trigonometry or simple vector concepts are common problems. Don't assume they know that stuff and be prepared to drill down with questions until you figure out what the problem is and then teach it to them again. tl;dr don't assume the teachers who taught them before you were competent!","human_ref_B":"As someone in the same grade: **It is impossible for you to make every student in your class interested in physics.** In my experience, physics is one of those subjects (like math) that many students are just conditioned to dislike by the way our education system works. We would need a broader change in the way we teach to reverse that, and you shouldn't hold yourself responsible for that as one teacher. Plus, most of these students will be at the end of their high school career, and probably already have some ideas about what subjects they like and don't like. So just know that it's not a personal failing of yours if not every student in your class enjoys physics. Just do your best to share your love for the subject with your students and make sure they succeed, but don't hold yourself to impossible standards. You will be happier and better at teaching with that mentality. Obviously, I'm not saying to abandon unmotivated students. Just that you shouldn't let it get to your sense of self-worth as a teacher.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":638.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9q5ga","c_root_id_B":"gz9tdsq","created_at_utc_A":1621862520,"created_at_utc_B":1621864202,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"As noted: anxiety about teaching is normal. For most people it fades as you do it a bit, but there's always a little bit of something for each new class. My advice? Watch Walter Lewin's MIT lecture series. Obviously, physical constraints and a school board will prevent you from stealing most of his content -- but as a source of inspiration for how to engage students? Excellent. You likely have a designated outline of the material that needs to be taught, as dictated by the state. Combined with the AP test content list, that's what students \"need to know\" by the end. Ideally we'd like students to be more on the \"how to manipulate equations and get results\" rather than \"memorize every variation on the theme\". Anything else is specific to student needs, or general teaching advice.","human_ref_B":"As someone in the same grade: **It is impossible for you to make every student in your class interested in physics.** In my experience, physics is one of those subjects (like math) that many students are just conditioned to dislike by the way our education system works. We would need a broader change in the way we teach to reverse that, and you shouldn't hold yourself responsible for that as one teacher. Plus, most of these students will be at the end of their high school career, and probably already have some ideas about what subjects they like and don't like. So just know that it's not a personal failing of yours if not every student in your class enjoys physics. Just do your best to share your love for the subject with your students and make sure they succeed, but don't hold yourself to impossible standards. You will be happier and better at teaching with that mentality. Obviously, I'm not saying to abandon unmotivated students. Just that you shouldn't let it get to your sense of self-worth as a teacher.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1682.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9tdbx","c_root_id_B":"gz9tdsq","created_at_utc_A":1621864195,"created_at_utc_B":1621864202,"score_A":3,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Just curious, what is your background? I might suggest looking at The Mechanical Universe The series might seem a little dated now, but the physics is still very solid and might help you get over the humps of understanding.","human_ref_B":"As someone in the same grade: **It is impossible for you to make every student in your class interested in physics.** In my experience, physics is one of those subjects (like math) that many students are just conditioned to dislike by the way our education system works. We would need a broader change in the way we teach to reverse that, and you shouldn't hold yourself responsible for that as one teacher. Plus, most of these students will be at the end of their high school career, and probably already have some ideas about what subjects they like and don't like. So just know that it's not a personal failing of yours if not every student in your class enjoys physics. Just do your best to share your love for the subject with your students and make sure they succeed, but don't hold yourself to impossible standards. You will be happier and better at teaching with that mentality. Obviously, I'm not saying to abandon unmotivated students. Just that you shouldn't let it get to your sense of self-worth as a teacher.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gz9tdsq","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621864202,"score_A":2,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"As someone in the same grade: **It is impossible for you to make every student in your class interested in physics.** In my experience, physics is one of those subjects (like math) that many students are just conditioned to dislike by the way our education system works. We would need a broader change in the way we teach to reverse that, and you shouldn't hold yourself responsible for that as one teacher. Plus, most of these students will be at the end of their high school career, and probably already have some ideas about what subjects they like and don't like. So just know that it's not a personal failing of yours if not every student in your class enjoys physics. Just do your best to share your love for the subject with your students and make sure they succeed, but don't hold yourself to impossible standards. You will be happier and better at teaching with that mentality. Obviously, I'm not saying to abandon unmotivated students. Just that you shouldn't let it get to your sense of self-worth as a teacher.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2505.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9q442","c_root_id_B":"gz9vjho","created_at_utc_A":1621862500,"created_at_utc_B":1621865259,"score_A":8,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"So I\u2019m going into my junior year of university, but my favorite teacher so far is probably my 12th grade physics teacher! He taught us \u201cadvanced concepts\u201d, which was essentially college level material without calculus. My advice would be to not just lecture from the textbook. One thing my professor would do was give us quick anecdotes about topics, like \u201cthis property of water being denser than Ice helps explain why some species of sea creatures survived during the ice age!\u201d He was always extremely excited about what he was teaching, like he was our friend that couldn\u2019t wait to tell us this cool new thing he learned. That enthusiasm and relevance to real life is what made me love that class above all. It also got me into engineering, because we had an end of semester project where we had to pick ANY topic that\u2019s related to physics, build SOMETHING that demonstrates that topic, and write a paper on it. Leaving it so open ended led to the students being able to use their creativity to make whatever they wanted. I made a very simple electrical generator with neodymium magnets and copper coils, one of my friends made a Java program that showed how solar cells worked, etc... So I know I may have gone in a tangent here but I guess what it boils down to is just be engaged with your students. Show them WHY physics is so cool and important, and spend some time in class away from the textbook and show them physics at work through anecdotes and\/or scientific discoveries. Maybe even utilize that physics project idea and let your students use creativity to build something, perhaps as a group project type thing! It may show them that their future is engineering or in a physics field, and it looks amazing on a college application! EDIT: I also saw a comment about \u2018bullshitting\u2019 and I kinda agree. When we asked my teacher a question he didn\u2019t know, instead of try and use his best judgement, we\u2019d discuss the topic, what we thought the answer could be as a class, and then he would tell us he would research it more and get back to us. I really loved this approach","human_ref_B":"My 2 cents, but take it with a grain of salt. Based on tutoring high school and college students, one of the biggest problems is that students can be totally confused and think physics is a grab bag of thousands of equations, and they have to guess at which equation to use. You probably know all this already. So, as you teach, and as you answer questions, emphasize that nearly every question is exactly the same question. I'm guessing the bulk of the course is Kinematics and Newton's 3 laws. It's always 1) FBD, 2) N2 in the y direction, 3) N2 in the x direction, 4) fill in your equations, 5) solve 2 equations with 2 unknowns. Point out that as you progress through the text, you are starting with a = 0, then you do a = constant, then you do special cases like a = elevator, or circle motion = v^2 \/r, etc. Then you cross N2 with a radius vector, and you have all the torque questions. It's all the same question, and you always answer it the same way. And never guess at stuff, never assume N = mg, you always do the steps above and always solve for it. Sure, you probably get some fluid mechanics, electric circuits, doppler shifts, etc, so there will be a bit grab baggy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2759.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9s4dc","c_root_id_B":"gz9vjho","created_at_utc_A":1621863564,"created_at_utc_B":1621865259,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"u\/Hiphoppapotamus has it right about being honest if you don't know something, I just wanted to add that if a student gives you a different answer than the book tells yout or says there's something wrong with the question or the textbook or something you've presented don't dismiss them out of hand and insist they're wrong and you or the book are right until you've checked and worked through it with the student to see what is going on. People make mistakes and typos and even textbooks and online materials contain mistakes, and unfortunately far too often I've heard of pupils being told they are wrong by the teacher when they're not. That can really sour a pupil on a subject and on school in general. Also when setting exercises don't just rely on the book answer, work through them yourself. Edit: second piece of advice: in my experience a lot of problems for pupils come from not fully understanding something really basic earlier on, maybe from math or another subject. If you see a pupil struggling with something it may not be your material but something earlier they're struggling with which your material assumes they already grasp. Basic trigonometry or simple vector concepts are common problems. Don't assume they know that stuff and be prepared to drill down with questions until you figure out what the problem is and then teach it to them again. tl;dr don't assume the teachers who taught them before you were competent!","human_ref_B":"My 2 cents, but take it with a grain of salt. Based on tutoring high school and college students, one of the biggest problems is that students can be totally confused and think physics is a grab bag of thousands of equations, and they have to guess at which equation to use. You probably know all this already. So, as you teach, and as you answer questions, emphasize that nearly every question is exactly the same question. I'm guessing the bulk of the course is Kinematics and Newton's 3 laws. It's always 1) FBD, 2) N2 in the y direction, 3) N2 in the x direction, 4) fill in your equations, 5) solve 2 equations with 2 unknowns. Point out that as you progress through the text, you are starting with a = 0, then you do a = constant, then you do special cases like a = elevator, or circle motion = v^2 \/r, etc. Then you cross N2 with a radius vector, and you have all the torque questions. It's all the same question, and you always answer it the same way. And never guess at stuff, never assume N = mg, you always do the steps above and always solve for it. Sure, you probably get some fluid mechanics, electric circuits, doppler shifts, etc, so there will be a bit grab baggy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1695.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9q5ga","c_root_id_B":"gz9vjho","created_at_utc_A":1621862520,"created_at_utc_B":1621865259,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"As noted: anxiety about teaching is normal. For most people it fades as you do it a bit, but there's always a little bit of something for each new class. My advice? Watch Walter Lewin's MIT lecture series. Obviously, physical constraints and a school board will prevent you from stealing most of his content -- but as a source of inspiration for how to engage students? Excellent. You likely have a designated outline of the material that needs to be taught, as dictated by the state. Combined with the AP test content list, that's what students \"need to know\" by the end. Ideally we'd like students to be more on the \"how to manipulate equations and get results\" rather than \"memorize every variation on the theme\". Anything else is specific to student needs, or general teaching advice.","human_ref_B":"My 2 cents, but take it with a grain of salt. Based on tutoring high school and college students, one of the biggest problems is that students can be totally confused and think physics is a grab bag of thousands of equations, and they have to guess at which equation to use. You probably know all this already. So, as you teach, and as you answer questions, emphasize that nearly every question is exactly the same question. I'm guessing the bulk of the course is Kinematics and Newton's 3 laws. It's always 1) FBD, 2) N2 in the y direction, 3) N2 in the x direction, 4) fill in your equations, 5) solve 2 equations with 2 unknowns. Point out that as you progress through the text, you are starting with a = 0, then you do a = constant, then you do special cases like a = elevator, or circle motion = v^2 \/r, etc. Then you cross N2 with a radius vector, and you have all the torque questions. It's all the same question, and you always answer it the same way. And never guess at stuff, never assume N = mg, you always do the steps above and always solve for it. Sure, you probably get some fluid mechanics, electric circuits, doppler shifts, etc, so there will be a bit grab baggy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2739.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9tdbx","c_root_id_B":"gz9vjho","created_at_utc_A":1621864195,"created_at_utc_B":1621865259,"score_A":3,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Just curious, what is your background? I might suggest looking at The Mechanical Universe The series might seem a little dated now, but the physics is still very solid and might help you get over the humps of understanding.","human_ref_B":"My 2 cents, but take it with a grain of salt. Based on tutoring high school and college students, one of the biggest problems is that students can be totally confused and think physics is a grab bag of thousands of equations, and they have to guess at which equation to use. You probably know all this already. So, as you teach, and as you answer questions, emphasize that nearly every question is exactly the same question. I'm guessing the bulk of the course is Kinematics and Newton's 3 laws. It's always 1) FBD, 2) N2 in the y direction, 3) N2 in the x direction, 4) fill in your equations, 5) solve 2 equations with 2 unknowns. Point out that as you progress through the text, you are starting with a = 0, then you do a = constant, then you do special cases like a = elevator, or circle motion = v^2 \/r, etc. Then you cross N2 with a radius vector, and you have all the torque questions. It's all the same question, and you always answer it the same way. And never guess at stuff, never assume N = mg, you always do the steps above and always solve for it. Sure, you probably get some fluid mechanics, electric circuits, doppler shifts, etc, so there will be a bit grab baggy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1064.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9vjho","c_root_id_B":"gz9oo69","created_at_utc_A":1621865259,"created_at_utc_B":1621861697,"score_A":12,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"My 2 cents, but take it with a grain of salt. Based on tutoring high school and college students, one of the biggest problems is that students can be totally confused and think physics is a grab bag of thousands of equations, and they have to guess at which equation to use. You probably know all this already. So, as you teach, and as you answer questions, emphasize that nearly every question is exactly the same question. I'm guessing the bulk of the course is Kinematics and Newton's 3 laws. It's always 1) FBD, 2) N2 in the y direction, 3) N2 in the x direction, 4) fill in your equations, 5) solve 2 equations with 2 unknowns. Point out that as you progress through the text, you are starting with a = 0, then you do a = constant, then you do special cases like a = elevator, or circle motion = v^2 \/r, etc. Then you cross N2 with a radius vector, and you have all the torque questions. It's all the same question, and you always answer it the same way. And never guess at stuff, never assume N = mg, you always do the steps above and always solve for it. Sure, you probably get some fluid mechanics, electric circuits, doppler shifts, etc, so there will be a bit grab baggy.","human_ref_B":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3562.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9q442","c_root_id_B":"gz9zjlo","created_at_utc_A":1621862500,"created_at_utc_B":1621867195,"score_A":8,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"So I\u2019m going into my junior year of university, but my favorite teacher so far is probably my 12th grade physics teacher! He taught us \u201cadvanced concepts\u201d, which was essentially college level material without calculus. My advice would be to not just lecture from the textbook. One thing my professor would do was give us quick anecdotes about topics, like \u201cthis property of water being denser than Ice helps explain why some species of sea creatures survived during the ice age!\u201d He was always extremely excited about what he was teaching, like he was our friend that couldn\u2019t wait to tell us this cool new thing he learned. That enthusiasm and relevance to real life is what made me love that class above all. It also got me into engineering, because we had an end of semester project where we had to pick ANY topic that\u2019s related to physics, build SOMETHING that demonstrates that topic, and write a paper on it. Leaving it so open ended led to the students being able to use their creativity to make whatever they wanted. I made a very simple electrical generator with neodymium magnets and copper coils, one of my friends made a Java program that showed how solar cells worked, etc... So I know I may have gone in a tangent here but I guess what it boils down to is just be engaged with your students. Show them WHY physics is so cool and important, and spend some time in class away from the textbook and show them physics at work through anecdotes and\/or scientific discoveries. Maybe even utilize that physics project idea and let your students use creativity to build something, perhaps as a group project type thing! It may show them that their future is engineering or in a physics field, and it looks amazing on a college application! EDIT: I also saw a comment about \u2018bullshitting\u2019 and I kinda agree. When we asked my teacher a question he didn\u2019t know, instead of try and use his best judgement, we\u2019d discuss the topic, what we thought the answer could be as a class, and then he would tell us he would research it more and get back to us. I really loved this approach","human_ref_B":"Ive been teaching physics for 14 years! Here is my best advice: 1. Youtube videos are the best. They have great demos or interesting topics. I always try to include as much cool phenomena as i can. 2. Admit it if youre not sure or you dont know something. Kids appreciate honesty and its great to model that you are here to learn and explore as well. 3. Do as many easy, approachable labs as possible. Data collection and analysis is whats really key. 4. Use the G.U.E.S.S. method (identify Givens and Unknowns, pick an Equation, Substitute, solve and Select a unit) 5. Use https:\/\/phet.colorado.edu for great virtual labs! Some are great for demos, but some are great for data collection and analysis (like the wave interference lab to reproduce Young's double slit experiment or you can do the Photoelectric effect to demonstrate light's wave-particle duality)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4695.0,"score_ratio":1.375} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9s4dc","c_root_id_B":"gz9zjlo","created_at_utc_A":1621863564,"created_at_utc_B":1621867195,"score_A":6,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"u\/Hiphoppapotamus has it right about being honest if you don't know something, I just wanted to add that if a student gives you a different answer than the book tells yout or says there's something wrong with the question or the textbook or something you've presented don't dismiss them out of hand and insist they're wrong and you or the book are right until you've checked and worked through it with the student to see what is going on. People make mistakes and typos and even textbooks and online materials contain mistakes, and unfortunately far too often I've heard of pupils being told they are wrong by the teacher when they're not. That can really sour a pupil on a subject and on school in general. Also when setting exercises don't just rely on the book answer, work through them yourself. Edit: second piece of advice: in my experience a lot of problems for pupils come from not fully understanding something really basic earlier on, maybe from math or another subject. If you see a pupil struggling with something it may not be your material but something earlier they're struggling with which your material assumes they already grasp. Basic trigonometry or simple vector concepts are common problems. Don't assume they know that stuff and be prepared to drill down with questions until you figure out what the problem is and then teach it to them again. tl;dr don't assume the teachers who taught them before you were competent!","human_ref_B":"Ive been teaching physics for 14 years! Here is my best advice: 1. Youtube videos are the best. They have great demos or interesting topics. I always try to include as much cool phenomena as i can. 2. Admit it if youre not sure or you dont know something. Kids appreciate honesty and its great to model that you are here to learn and explore as well. 3. Do as many easy, approachable labs as possible. Data collection and analysis is whats really key. 4. Use the G.U.E.S.S. method (identify Givens and Unknowns, pick an Equation, Substitute, solve and Select a unit) 5. Use https:\/\/phet.colorado.edu for great virtual labs! Some are great for demos, but some are great for data collection and analysis (like the wave interference lab to reproduce Young's double slit experiment or you can do the Photoelectric effect to demonstrate light's wave-particle duality)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3631.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9wyn6","c_root_id_B":"gz9zjlo","created_at_utc_A":1621865954,"created_at_utc_B":1621867195,"score_A":6,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"If you are enthusiastic about the material, most students will be too. You do not need to know everything. If a student asks a question you don\u2019t know the answer to, say so. Tell them you will look into it and then address it at the top of the next class. Or ask them to research it and see if they can answer it. In the classroom, think active learning. A good book, geared towards college, but useful for you is Teaching and Learning STEM: A Practical Guide by Felder and Brent. Another good one is Small Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Science of Learning by James M. Lang. Use demos whenever possible - even if really simple. Try short lectures (10 - 15 minutes) broken up with different activities - group problem solving, individual problem solving, demonstrations, think-pair-share questions, etc. The student should be practicing predicting, problem-solving, and thinking in class, not just listening. I also find it is useful to explain why you are teaching the way you are, tell them you are using the techniques that physics education research indicates are the most effective. Good luck! You won\u2019t be perfect at first - no one is, but if you put in the time, experiment with different teaching techniques to find the ones that work best both for you and the population of students you are teachng, and keep practicing, you will keep improve, like with all things.","human_ref_B":"Ive been teaching physics for 14 years! Here is my best advice: 1. Youtube videos are the best. They have great demos or interesting topics. I always try to include as much cool phenomena as i can. 2. Admit it if youre not sure or you dont know something. Kids appreciate honesty and its great to model that you are here to learn and explore as well. 3. Do as many easy, approachable labs as possible. Data collection and analysis is whats really key. 4. Use the G.U.E.S.S. method (identify Givens and Unknowns, pick an Equation, Substitute, solve and Select a unit) 5. Use https:\/\/phet.colorado.edu for great virtual labs! Some are great for demos, but some are great for data collection and analysis (like the wave interference lab to reproduce Young's double slit experiment or you can do the Photoelectric effect to demonstrate light's wave-particle duality)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1241.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9zjlo","c_root_id_B":"gz9x0o3","created_at_utc_A":1621867195,"created_at_utc_B":1621865982,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Ive been teaching physics for 14 years! Here is my best advice: 1. Youtube videos are the best. They have great demos or interesting topics. I always try to include as much cool phenomena as i can. 2. Admit it if youre not sure or you dont know something. Kids appreciate honesty and its great to model that you are here to learn and explore as well. 3. Do as many easy, approachable labs as possible. Data collection and analysis is whats really key. 4. Use the G.U.E.S.S. method (identify Givens and Unknowns, pick an Equation, Substitute, solve and Select a unit) 5. Use https:\/\/phet.colorado.edu for great virtual labs! Some are great for demos, but some are great for data collection and analysis (like the wave interference lab to reproduce Young's double slit experiment or you can do the Photoelectric effect to demonstrate light's wave-particle duality)","human_ref_B":"Be experimental amd physical with it, if you're passionate show you are, my grade 11 physics teacher was the kind of guy to jump on the desks and blast air guns at you, and he's the reason I'm in engineering now, my grade 12 teacher stood there and talked, and my mark was significantly lower because of it","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1213.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9q5ga","c_root_id_B":"gz9zjlo","created_at_utc_A":1621862520,"created_at_utc_B":1621867195,"score_A":4,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"As noted: anxiety about teaching is normal. For most people it fades as you do it a bit, but there's always a little bit of something for each new class. My advice? Watch Walter Lewin's MIT lecture series. Obviously, physical constraints and a school board will prevent you from stealing most of his content -- but as a source of inspiration for how to engage students? Excellent. You likely have a designated outline of the material that needs to be taught, as dictated by the state. Combined with the AP test content list, that's what students \"need to know\" by the end. Ideally we'd like students to be more on the \"how to manipulate equations and get results\" rather than \"memorize every variation on the theme\". Anything else is specific to student needs, or general teaching advice.","human_ref_B":"Ive been teaching physics for 14 years! Here is my best advice: 1. Youtube videos are the best. They have great demos or interesting topics. I always try to include as much cool phenomena as i can. 2. Admit it if youre not sure or you dont know something. Kids appreciate honesty and its great to model that you are here to learn and explore as well. 3. Do as many easy, approachable labs as possible. Data collection and analysis is whats really key. 4. Use the G.U.E.S.S. method (identify Givens and Unknowns, pick an Equation, Substitute, solve and Select a unit) 5. Use https:\/\/phet.colorado.edu for great virtual labs! Some are great for demos, but some are great for data collection and analysis (like the wave interference lab to reproduce Young's double slit experiment or you can do the Photoelectric effect to demonstrate light's wave-particle duality)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4675.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9zjlo","c_root_id_B":"gz9tdbx","created_at_utc_A":1621867195,"created_at_utc_B":1621864195,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Ive been teaching physics for 14 years! Here is my best advice: 1. Youtube videos are the best. They have great demos or interesting topics. I always try to include as much cool phenomena as i can. 2. Admit it if youre not sure or you dont know something. Kids appreciate honesty and its great to model that you are here to learn and explore as well. 3. Do as many easy, approachable labs as possible. Data collection and analysis is whats really key. 4. Use the G.U.E.S.S. method (identify Givens and Unknowns, pick an Equation, Substitute, solve and Select a unit) 5. Use https:\/\/phet.colorado.edu for great virtual labs! Some are great for demos, but some are great for data collection and analysis (like the wave interference lab to reproduce Young's double slit experiment or you can do the Photoelectric effect to demonstrate light's wave-particle duality)","human_ref_B":"Just curious, what is your background? I might suggest looking at The Mechanical Universe The series might seem a little dated now, but the physics is still very solid and might help you get over the humps of understanding.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3000.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9xonq","c_root_id_B":"gz9zjlo","created_at_utc_A":1621866298,"created_at_utc_B":1621867195,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I think what would be helpful is to keep reinforcing big picture concepts that appear over and over. Like one type of energy being converted to another.","human_ref_B":"Ive been teaching physics for 14 years! Here is my best advice: 1. Youtube videos are the best. They have great demos or interesting topics. I always try to include as much cool phenomena as i can. 2. Admit it if youre not sure or you dont know something. Kids appreciate honesty and its great to model that you are here to learn and explore as well. 3. Do as many easy, approachable labs as possible. Data collection and analysis is whats really key. 4. Use the G.U.E.S.S. method (identify Givens and Unknowns, pick an Equation, Substitute, solve and Select a unit) 5. Use https:\/\/phet.colorado.edu for great virtual labs! Some are great for demos, but some are great for data collection and analysis (like the wave interference lab to reproduce Young's double slit experiment or you can do the Photoelectric effect to demonstrate light's wave-particle duality)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":897.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9zjlo","c_root_id_B":"gz9z9r8","created_at_utc_A":1621867195,"created_at_utc_B":1621867064,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Ive been teaching physics for 14 years! Here is my best advice: 1. Youtube videos are the best. They have great demos or interesting topics. I always try to include as much cool phenomena as i can. 2. Admit it if youre not sure or you dont know something. Kids appreciate honesty and its great to model that you are here to learn and explore as well. 3. Do as many easy, approachable labs as possible. Data collection and analysis is whats really key. 4. Use the G.U.E.S.S. method (identify Givens and Unknowns, pick an Equation, Substitute, solve and Select a unit) 5. Use https:\/\/phet.colorado.edu for great virtual labs! Some are great for demos, but some are great for data collection and analysis (like the wave interference lab to reproduce Young's double slit experiment or you can do the Photoelectric effect to demonstrate light's wave-particle duality)","human_ref_B":"The concepts of introductory physics are **SO** simple (energy at point a = energy at point b, two colliding objects don't gain or lose momentum, you can't get more work than heat, push on something and it moves \/ sum F = ma, etc). However, the notation and the jargon can be overwhelming. Educators sometimes try to make something or themselves seem more impressive or important by making up big words and getting fancy. Keep it simple and make it real. Physics is about finding the simplest, most eloquent explanation of how the universe works. There are lots of versions of the \"barmaid\" quote - some of them might have actually been uttered! Here's one: \u201cA scientist who can\u2019t explain his theories to a barmaid doesn\u2019t really understand them.\u201d \u2014 Ernest Rutherford (c.1915) (More at http:\/\/www.eoht.info\/page\/Barmaid%20physics#:\\~:text=%E2%80%9CIf%20a%20piece%20of%20physics,a%20good%20piece%20of%20physics.%E2%80%9D&text=%E2%80%9CA%20scientist%20who%20can't,'t%20really%20understand%20them.%E2%80%9D)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":131.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gz9zjlo","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621867195,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"Ive been teaching physics for 14 years! Here is my best advice: 1. Youtube videos are the best. They have great demos or interesting topics. I always try to include as much cool phenomena as i can. 2. Admit it if youre not sure or you dont know something. Kids appreciate honesty and its great to model that you are here to learn and explore as well. 3. Do as many easy, approachable labs as possible. Data collection and analysis is whats really key. 4. Use the G.U.E.S.S. method (identify Givens and Unknowns, pick an Equation, Substitute, solve and Select a unit) 5. Use https:\/\/phet.colorado.edu for great virtual labs! Some are great for demos, but some are great for data collection and analysis (like the wave interference lab to reproduce Young's double slit experiment or you can do the Photoelectric effect to demonstrate light's wave-particle duality)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5498.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9q442","c_root_id_B":"gz9oo69","created_at_utc_A":1621862500,"created_at_utc_B":1621861697,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So I\u2019m going into my junior year of university, but my favorite teacher so far is probably my 12th grade physics teacher! He taught us \u201cadvanced concepts\u201d, which was essentially college level material without calculus. My advice would be to not just lecture from the textbook. One thing my professor would do was give us quick anecdotes about topics, like \u201cthis property of water being denser than Ice helps explain why some species of sea creatures survived during the ice age!\u201d He was always extremely excited about what he was teaching, like he was our friend that couldn\u2019t wait to tell us this cool new thing he learned. That enthusiasm and relevance to real life is what made me love that class above all. It also got me into engineering, because we had an end of semester project where we had to pick ANY topic that\u2019s related to physics, build SOMETHING that demonstrates that topic, and write a paper on it. Leaving it so open ended led to the students being able to use their creativity to make whatever they wanted. I made a very simple electrical generator with neodymium magnets and copper coils, one of my friends made a Java program that showed how solar cells worked, etc... So I know I may have gone in a tangent here but I guess what it boils down to is just be engaged with your students. Show them WHY physics is so cool and important, and spend some time in class away from the textbook and show them physics at work through anecdotes and\/or scientific discoveries. Maybe even utilize that physics project idea and let your students use creativity to build something, perhaps as a group project type thing! It may show them that their future is engineering or in a physics field, and it looks amazing on a college application! EDIT: I also saw a comment about \u2018bullshitting\u2019 and I kinda agree. When we asked my teacher a question he didn\u2019t know, instead of try and use his best judgement, we\u2019d discuss the topic, what we thought the answer could be as a class, and then he would tell us he would research it more and get back to us. I really loved this approach","human_ref_B":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":803.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9s4dc","c_root_id_B":"gz9q5ga","created_at_utc_A":1621863564,"created_at_utc_B":1621862520,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"u\/Hiphoppapotamus has it right about being honest if you don't know something, I just wanted to add that if a student gives you a different answer than the book tells yout or says there's something wrong with the question or the textbook or something you've presented don't dismiss them out of hand and insist they're wrong and you or the book are right until you've checked and worked through it with the student to see what is going on. People make mistakes and typos and even textbooks and online materials contain mistakes, and unfortunately far too often I've heard of pupils being told they are wrong by the teacher when they're not. That can really sour a pupil on a subject and on school in general. Also when setting exercises don't just rely on the book answer, work through them yourself. Edit: second piece of advice: in my experience a lot of problems for pupils come from not fully understanding something really basic earlier on, maybe from math or another subject. If you see a pupil struggling with something it may not be your material but something earlier they're struggling with which your material assumes they already grasp. Basic trigonometry or simple vector concepts are common problems. Don't assume they know that stuff and be prepared to drill down with questions until you figure out what the problem is and then teach it to them again. tl;dr don't assume the teachers who taught them before you were competent!","human_ref_B":"As noted: anxiety about teaching is normal. For most people it fades as you do it a bit, but there's always a little bit of something for each new class. My advice? Watch Walter Lewin's MIT lecture series. Obviously, physical constraints and a school board will prevent you from stealing most of his content -- but as a source of inspiration for how to engage students? Excellent. You likely have a designated outline of the material that needs to be taught, as dictated by the state. Combined with the AP test content list, that's what students \"need to know\" by the end. Ideally we'd like students to be more on the \"how to manipulate equations and get results\" rather than \"memorize every variation on the theme\". Anything else is specific to student needs, or general teaching advice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1044.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gz9s4dc","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621863564,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"u\/Hiphoppapotamus has it right about being honest if you don't know something, I just wanted to add that if a student gives you a different answer than the book tells yout or says there's something wrong with the question or the textbook or something you've presented don't dismiss them out of hand and insist they're wrong and you or the book are right until you've checked and worked through it with the student to see what is going on. People make mistakes and typos and even textbooks and online materials contain mistakes, and unfortunately far too often I've heard of pupils being told they are wrong by the teacher when they're not. That can really sour a pupil on a subject and on school in general. Also when setting exercises don't just rely on the book answer, work through them yourself. Edit: second piece of advice: in my experience a lot of problems for pupils come from not fully understanding something really basic earlier on, maybe from math or another subject. If you see a pupil struggling with something it may not be your material but something earlier they're struggling with which your material assumes they already grasp. Basic trigonometry or simple vector concepts are common problems. Don't assume they know that stuff and be prepared to drill down with questions until you figure out what the problem is and then teach it to them again. tl;dr don't assume the teachers who taught them before you were competent!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1867.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9wyn6","c_root_id_B":"gz9q5ga","created_at_utc_A":1621865954,"created_at_utc_B":1621862520,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If you are enthusiastic about the material, most students will be too. You do not need to know everything. If a student asks a question you don\u2019t know the answer to, say so. Tell them you will look into it and then address it at the top of the next class. Or ask them to research it and see if they can answer it. In the classroom, think active learning. A good book, geared towards college, but useful for you is Teaching and Learning STEM: A Practical Guide by Felder and Brent. Another good one is Small Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Science of Learning by James M. Lang. Use demos whenever possible - even if really simple. Try short lectures (10 - 15 minutes) broken up with different activities - group problem solving, individual problem solving, demonstrations, think-pair-share questions, etc. The student should be practicing predicting, problem-solving, and thinking in class, not just listening. I also find it is useful to explain why you are teaching the way you are, tell them you are using the techniques that physics education research indicates are the most effective. Good luck! You won\u2019t be perfect at first - no one is, but if you put in the time, experiment with different teaching techniques to find the ones that work best both for you and the population of students you are teachng, and keep practicing, you will keep improve, like with all things.","human_ref_B":"As noted: anxiety about teaching is normal. For most people it fades as you do it a bit, but there's always a little bit of something for each new class. My advice? Watch Walter Lewin's MIT lecture series. Obviously, physical constraints and a school board will prevent you from stealing most of his content -- but as a source of inspiration for how to engage students? Excellent. You likely have a designated outline of the material that needs to be taught, as dictated by the state. Combined with the AP test content list, that's what students \"need to know\" by the end. Ideally we'd like students to be more on the \"how to manipulate equations and get results\" rather than \"memorize every variation on the theme\". Anything else is specific to student needs, or general teaching advice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3434.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9tdbx","c_root_id_B":"gz9wyn6","created_at_utc_A":1621864195,"created_at_utc_B":1621865954,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Just curious, what is your background? I might suggest looking at The Mechanical Universe The series might seem a little dated now, but the physics is still very solid and might help you get over the humps of understanding.","human_ref_B":"If you are enthusiastic about the material, most students will be too. You do not need to know everything. If a student asks a question you don\u2019t know the answer to, say so. Tell them you will look into it and then address it at the top of the next class. Or ask them to research it and see if they can answer it. In the classroom, think active learning. A good book, geared towards college, but useful for you is Teaching and Learning STEM: A Practical Guide by Felder and Brent. Another good one is Small Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Science of Learning by James M. Lang. Use demos whenever possible - even if really simple. Try short lectures (10 - 15 minutes) broken up with different activities - group problem solving, individual problem solving, demonstrations, think-pair-share questions, etc. The student should be practicing predicting, problem-solving, and thinking in class, not just listening. I also find it is useful to explain why you are teaching the way you are, tell them you are using the techniques that physics education research indicates are the most effective. Good luck! You won\u2019t be perfect at first - no one is, but if you put in the time, experiment with different teaching techniques to find the ones that work best both for you and the population of students you are teachng, and keep practicing, you will keep improve, like with all things.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1759.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gz9wyn6","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621865954,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"If you are enthusiastic about the material, most students will be too. You do not need to know everything. If a student asks a question you don\u2019t know the answer to, say so. Tell them you will look into it and then address it at the top of the next class. Or ask them to research it and see if they can answer it. In the classroom, think active learning. A good book, geared towards college, but useful for you is Teaching and Learning STEM: A Practical Guide by Felder and Brent. Another good one is Small Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Science of Learning by James M. Lang. Use demos whenever possible - even if really simple. Try short lectures (10 - 15 minutes) broken up with different activities - group problem solving, individual problem solving, demonstrations, think-pair-share questions, etc. The student should be practicing predicting, problem-solving, and thinking in class, not just listening. I also find it is useful to explain why you are teaching the way you are, tell them you are using the techniques that physics education research indicates are the most effective. Good luck! You won\u2019t be perfect at first - no one is, but if you put in the time, experiment with different teaching techniques to find the ones that work best both for you and the population of students you are teachng, and keep practicing, you will keep improve, like with all things.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4257.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9q5ga","c_root_id_B":"gz9x0o3","created_at_utc_A":1621862520,"created_at_utc_B":1621865982,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"As noted: anxiety about teaching is normal. For most people it fades as you do it a bit, but there's always a little bit of something for each new class. My advice? Watch Walter Lewin's MIT lecture series. Obviously, physical constraints and a school board will prevent you from stealing most of his content -- but as a source of inspiration for how to engage students? Excellent. You likely have a designated outline of the material that needs to be taught, as dictated by the state. Combined with the AP test content list, that's what students \"need to know\" by the end. Ideally we'd like students to be more on the \"how to manipulate equations and get results\" rather than \"memorize every variation on the theme\". Anything else is specific to student needs, or general teaching advice.","human_ref_B":"Be experimental amd physical with it, if you're passionate show you are, my grade 11 physics teacher was the kind of guy to jump on the desks and blast air guns at you, and he's the reason I'm in engineering now, my grade 12 teacher stood there and talked, and my mark was significantly lower because of it","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3462.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9x0o3","c_root_id_B":"gz9tdbx","created_at_utc_A":1621865982,"created_at_utc_B":1621864195,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Be experimental amd physical with it, if you're passionate show you are, my grade 11 physics teacher was the kind of guy to jump on the desks and blast air guns at you, and he's the reason I'm in engineering now, my grade 12 teacher stood there and talked, and my mark was significantly lower because of it","human_ref_B":"Just curious, what is your background? I might suggest looking at The Mechanical Universe The series might seem a little dated now, but the physics is still very solid and might help you get over the humps of understanding.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1787.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gz9x0o3","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621865982,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"Be experimental amd physical with it, if you're passionate show you are, my grade 11 physics teacher was the kind of guy to jump on the desks and blast air guns at you, and he's the reason I'm in engineering now, my grade 12 teacher stood there and talked, and my mark was significantly lower because of it","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4285.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzaao1q","c_root_id_B":"gz9q5ga","created_at_utc_A":1621872334,"created_at_utc_B":1621862520,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I can shorten this answer tremendously by simply suggesting you read some of Richard Feynman's quotes, and go by that. In my opinion, one of the best quotes he had was: \u201cYou can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, ***you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird.***.. So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing \u2014 that's what counts. *I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.*\u201d","human_ref_B":"As noted: anxiety about teaching is normal. For most people it fades as you do it a bit, but there's always a little bit of something for each new class. My advice? Watch Walter Lewin's MIT lecture series. Obviously, physical constraints and a school board will prevent you from stealing most of his content -- but as a source of inspiration for how to engage students? Excellent. You likely have a designated outline of the material that needs to be taught, as dictated by the state. Combined with the AP test content list, that's what students \"need to know\" by the end. Ideally we'd like students to be more on the \"how to manipulate equations and get results\" rather than \"memorize every variation on the theme\". Anything else is specific to student needs, or general teaching advice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9814.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzaao1q","c_root_id_B":"gz9tdbx","created_at_utc_A":1621872334,"created_at_utc_B":1621864195,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I can shorten this answer tremendously by simply suggesting you read some of Richard Feynman's quotes, and go by that. In my opinion, one of the best quotes he had was: \u201cYou can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, ***you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird.***.. So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing \u2014 that's what counts. *I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.*\u201d","human_ref_B":"Just curious, what is your background? I might suggest looking at The Mechanical Universe The series might seem a little dated now, but the physics is still very solid and might help you get over the humps of understanding.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8139.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9xonq","c_root_id_B":"gzaao1q","created_at_utc_A":1621866298,"created_at_utc_B":1621872334,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think what would be helpful is to keep reinforcing big picture concepts that appear over and over. Like one type of energy being converted to another.","human_ref_B":"I can shorten this answer tremendously by simply suggesting you read some of Richard Feynman's quotes, and go by that. In my opinion, one of the best quotes he had was: \u201cYou can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, ***you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird.***.. So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing \u2014 that's what counts. *I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.*\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6036.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzaao1q","c_root_id_B":"gz9z9r8","created_at_utc_A":1621872334,"created_at_utc_B":1621867064,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I can shorten this answer tremendously by simply suggesting you read some of Richard Feynman's quotes, and go by that. In my opinion, one of the best quotes he had was: \u201cYou can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, ***you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird.***.. So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing \u2014 that's what counts. *I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.*\u201d","human_ref_B":"The concepts of introductory physics are **SO** simple (energy at point a = energy at point b, two colliding objects don't gain or lose momentum, you can't get more work than heat, push on something and it moves \/ sum F = ma, etc). However, the notation and the jargon can be overwhelming. Educators sometimes try to make something or themselves seem more impressive or important by making up big words and getting fancy. Keep it simple and make it real. Physics is about finding the simplest, most eloquent explanation of how the universe works. There are lots of versions of the \"barmaid\" quote - some of them might have actually been uttered! Here's one: \u201cA scientist who can\u2019t explain his theories to a barmaid doesn\u2019t really understand them.\u201d \u2014 Ernest Rutherford (c.1915) (More at http:\/\/www.eoht.info\/page\/Barmaid%20physics#:\\~:text=%E2%80%9CIf%20a%20piece%20of%20physics,a%20good%20piece%20of%20physics.%E2%80%9D&text=%E2%80%9CA%20scientist%20who%20can't,'t%20really%20understand%20them.%E2%80%9D)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5270.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzaao1q","c_root_id_B":"gza4x4u","created_at_utc_A":1621872334,"created_at_utc_B":1621869674,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I can shorten this answer tremendously by simply suggesting you read some of Richard Feynman's quotes, and go by that. In my opinion, one of the best quotes he had was: \u201cYou can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, ***you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird.***.. So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing \u2014 that's what counts. *I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.*\u201d","human_ref_B":"General first-time teaching advice - accept the nervousness\/anxiety. Trying to fight it will just be crippling\/exhausting. You know the material (hopefully), now you just have to keep calm enough to communicate it effectively. Accept that you're going to stutter, trip over a word or 2, or just flub a whole goddamn sentence\/thought. It's ok to pause for a moment and take a breath. 12th graders are a bunch of assholes, so some of them will give you shit about it, but just shrug it off. It happens. I say this because I still remember my first semester teaching in grad school. Was teaching Gen. Bio., so most of my class were all first-term freshmen (basically 12.5 graders). I came in with that mindset of \"I'm barely older than them, I need to be fucking *on it*. WRONG. I had a mini-panic attack midway through a sentence, needed to take 2 mins to recompose myself. I calmed down, got through the day, got comfortable as the semester went on. We had a good laugh about it at the end of the semester. The worst pressure is the pressure you put on yourself. You're not going to be perfect at the start, that's ok. ... just don't read directly from your slides.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2660.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gzaao1q","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621872334,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"I can shorten this answer tremendously by simply suggesting you read some of Richard Feynman's quotes, and go by that. In my opinion, one of the best quotes he had was: \u201cYou can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, ***you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird.***.. So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing \u2014 that's what counts. *I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.*\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10637.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzaao1q","c_root_id_B":"gza4oda","created_at_utc_A":1621872334,"created_at_utc_B":1621869564,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I can shorten this answer tremendously by simply suggesting you read some of Richard Feynman's quotes, and go by that. In my opinion, one of the best quotes he had was: \u201cYou can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, ***you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird.***.. So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing \u2014 that's what counts. *I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.*\u201d","human_ref_B":"Less \"rigor,\" more joy. Less confirmation labs, more exploration. As much PBL\/Inquiry as possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2770.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gza90w7","c_root_id_B":"gzaao1q","created_at_utc_A":1621871584,"created_at_utc_B":1621872334,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"\u201cWhy\u201d is just as important as \u201chow.\u201d Explaining the reason behind events can help them to learn and memorize material. For example, when teaching electromagnetism, give quantum explanations, or for gravity, talk about space-time curvature (qualitatively of course)","human_ref_B":"I can shorten this answer tremendously by simply suggesting you read some of Richard Feynman's quotes, and go by that. In my opinion, one of the best quotes he had was: \u201cYou can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, ***you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird.***.. So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing \u2014 that's what counts. *I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.*\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":750.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzadqp7","c_root_id_B":"gz9q5ga","created_at_utc_A":1621873677,"created_at_utc_B":1621862520,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This is a good question with a lot of good responses from others. I think something missing from other responses is your school's expectations for this class. The big things to keep in mind for this are mathematical rigor, lab work rigor, and delivery expectations. We all know that the big thing that scares away students from physics is the mathematics. Yet, people who teach physics often love the math. This often causes a disconnect with the teacher and the majority of the student population. Before you go deep into planning be aware of the mathematical prerequisites for your course and what math content has been discussed for your students by the time they get to you. For example, my class is based off of understandings from Algebra I. As such, I don't do trig functions and resultant forces for my class. I would love to do it, but I also don't want to teach trigonometry for 2 weeks to get there. When I mentioned lab rigor earlier, this is another expectation you'll need to clarify from your colleagues. Hopefully your science department has discussed vertical planning and the skills necessary for the students at your school to succeed in the science classes your students already took. Figure out from there what you should expect your students to know and what you can build upon. Ask your colleagues questions like: Do they actually know how to make a scale of a graph by hand? How about a trendline? Have they made computers do graph everything for them? Would teaching them some spreadsheet skills be useful? How many full blown lab reports have the students written before your class? etc. Delivery expectations boils down to how did your students learn science in the previous grades? Was there a lot of lecture? Projects? Worksheets? Discussions? I was trained to teach using discussions and projects. But, one of my worst school years ever was when I moved to a new school that wasn't ready for this. The 12th graders I taught were used to taking notes on a lecture and doing worksheets. Me trying to asking what they think about physics phenomena and discussing it was seen as \"Not teaching!\" and worthy of mutiny. The rest of the year was a wash. You should know how the kids have worked on science in the past and modify it slightly to fit you. You're not ready to rock the boat, even if it desperately needs to be rocked. Teaching physics is incredibly rewarding, fun, and joyful. Welcome to the club! There aren't enough of us out there.","human_ref_B":"As noted: anxiety about teaching is normal. For most people it fades as you do it a bit, but there's always a little bit of something for each new class. My advice? Watch Walter Lewin's MIT lecture series. Obviously, physical constraints and a school board will prevent you from stealing most of his content -- but as a source of inspiration for how to engage students? Excellent. You likely have a designated outline of the material that needs to be taught, as dictated by the state. Combined with the AP test content list, that's what students \"need to know\" by the end. Ideally we'd like students to be more on the \"how to manipulate equations and get results\" rather than \"memorize every variation on the theme\". Anything else is specific to student needs, or general teaching advice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11157.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzadqp7","c_root_id_B":"gz9tdbx","created_at_utc_A":1621873677,"created_at_utc_B":1621864195,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This is a good question with a lot of good responses from others. I think something missing from other responses is your school's expectations for this class. The big things to keep in mind for this are mathematical rigor, lab work rigor, and delivery expectations. We all know that the big thing that scares away students from physics is the mathematics. Yet, people who teach physics often love the math. This often causes a disconnect with the teacher and the majority of the student population. Before you go deep into planning be aware of the mathematical prerequisites for your course and what math content has been discussed for your students by the time they get to you. For example, my class is based off of understandings from Algebra I. As such, I don't do trig functions and resultant forces for my class. I would love to do it, but I also don't want to teach trigonometry for 2 weeks to get there. When I mentioned lab rigor earlier, this is another expectation you'll need to clarify from your colleagues. Hopefully your science department has discussed vertical planning and the skills necessary for the students at your school to succeed in the science classes your students already took. Figure out from there what you should expect your students to know and what you can build upon. Ask your colleagues questions like: Do they actually know how to make a scale of a graph by hand? How about a trendline? Have they made computers do graph everything for them? Would teaching them some spreadsheet skills be useful? How many full blown lab reports have the students written before your class? etc. Delivery expectations boils down to how did your students learn science in the previous grades? Was there a lot of lecture? Projects? Worksheets? Discussions? I was trained to teach using discussions and projects. But, one of my worst school years ever was when I moved to a new school that wasn't ready for this. The 12th graders I taught were used to taking notes on a lecture and doing worksheets. Me trying to asking what they think about physics phenomena and discussing it was seen as \"Not teaching!\" and worthy of mutiny. The rest of the year was a wash. You should know how the kids have worked on science in the past and modify it slightly to fit you. You're not ready to rock the boat, even if it desperately needs to be rocked. Teaching physics is incredibly rewarding, fun, and joyful. Welcome to the club! There aren't enough of us out there.","human_ref_B":"Just curious, what is your background? I might suggest looking at The Mechanical Universe The series might seem a little dated now, but the physics is still very solid and might help you get over the humps of understanding.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9482.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9xonq","c_root_id_B":"gzadqp7","created_at_utc_A":1621866298,"created_at_utc_B":1621873677,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think what would be helpful is to keep reinforcing big picture concepts that appear over and over. Like one type of energy being converted to another.","human_ref_B":"This is a good question with a lot of good responses from others. I think something missing from other responses is your school's expectations for this class. The big things to keep in mind for this are mathematical rigor, lab work rigor, and delivery expectations. We all know that the big thing that scares away students from physics is the mathematics. Yet, people who teach physics often love the math. This often causes a disconnect with the teacher and the majority of the student population. Before you go deep into planning be aware of the mathematical prerequisites for your course and what math content has been discussed for your students by the time they get to you. For example, my class is based off of understandings from Algebra I. As such, I don't do trig functions and resultant forces for my class. I would love to do it, but I also don't want to teach trigonometry for 2 weeks to get there. When I mentioned lab rigor earlier, this is another expectation you'll need to clarify from your colleagues. Hopefully your science department has discussed vertical planning and the skills necessary for the students at your school to succeed in the science classes your students already took. Figure out from there what you should expect your students to know and what you can build upon. Ask your colleagues questions like: Do they actually know how to make a scale of a graph by hand? How about a trendline? Have they made computers do graph everything for them? Would teaching them some spreadsheet skills be useful? How many full blown lab reports have the students written before your class? etc. Delivery expectations boils down to how did your students learn science in the previous grades? Was there a lot of lecture? Projects? Worksheets? Discussions? I was trained to teach using discussions and projects. But, one of my worst school years ever was when I moved to a new school that wasn't ready for this. The 12th graders I taught were used to taking notes on a lecture and doing worksheets. Me trying to asking what they think about physics phenomena and discussing it was seen as \"Not teaching!\" and worthy of mutiny. The rest of the year was a wash. You should know how the kids have worked on science in the past and modify it slightly to fit you. You're not ready to rock the boat, even if it desperately needs to be rocked. Teaching physics is incredibly rewarding, fun, and joyful. Welcome to the club! There aren't enough of us out there.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7379.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9z9r8","c_root_id_B":"gzadqp7","created_at_utc_A":1621867064,"created_at_utc_B":1621873677,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The concepts of introductory physics are **SO** simple (energy at point a = energy at point b, two colliding objects don't gain or lose momentum, you can't get more work than heat, push on something and it moves \/ sum F = ma, etc). However, the notation and the jargon can be overwhelming. Educators sometimes try to make something or themselves seem more impressive or important by making up big words and getting fancy. Keep it simple and make it real. Physics is about finding the simplest, most eloquent explanation of how the universe works. There are lots of versions of the \"barmaid\" quote - some of them might have actually been uttered! Here's one: \u201cA scientist who can\u2019t explain his theories to a barmaid doesn\u2019t really understand them.\u201d \u2014 Ernest Rutherford (c.1915) (More at http:\/\/www.eoht.info\/page\/Barmaid%20physics#:\\~:text=%E2%80%9CIf%20a%20piece%20of%20physics,a%20good%20piece%20of%20physics.%E2%80%9D&text=%E2%80%9CA%20scientist%20who%20can't,'t%20really%20understand%20them.%E2%80%9D)","human_ref_B":"This is a good question with a lot of good responses from others. I think something missing from other responses is your school's expectations for this class. The big things to keep in mind for this are mathematical rigor, lab work rigor, and delivery expectations. We all know that the big thing that scares away students from physics is the mathematics. Yet, people who teach physics often love the math. This often causes a disconnect with the teacher and the majority of the student population. Before you go deep into planning be aware of the mathematical prerequisites for your course and what math content has been discussed for your students by the time they get to you. For example, my class is based off of understandings from Algebra I. As such, I don't do trig functions and resultant forces for my class. I would love to do it, but I also don't want to teach trigonometry for 2 weeks to get there. When I mentioned lab rigor earlier, this is another expectation you'll need to clarify from your colleagues. Hopefully your science department has discussed vertical planning and the skills necessary for the students at your school to succeed in the science classes your students already took. Figure out from there what you should expect your students to know and what you can build upon. Ask your colleagues questions like: Do they actually know how to make a scale of a graph by hand? How about a trendline? Have they made computers do graph everything for them? Would teaching them some spreadsheet skills be useful? How many full blown lab reports have the students written before your class? etc. Delivery expectations boils down to how did your students learn science in the previous grades? Was there a lot of lecture? Projects? Worksheets? Discussions? I was trained to teach using discussions and projects. But, one of my worst school years ever was when I moved to a new school that wasn't ready for this. The 12th graders I taught were used to taking notes on a lecture and doing worksheets. Me trying to asking what they think about physics phenomena and discussing it was seen as \"Not teaching!\" and worthy of mutiny. The rest of the year was a wash. You should know how the kids have worked on science in the past and modify it slightly to fit you. You're not ready to rock the boat, even if it desperately needs to be rocked. Teaching physics is incredibly rewarding, fun, and joyful. Welcome to the club! There aren't enough of us out there.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6613.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gza4x4u","c_root_id_B":"gzadqp7","created_at_utc_A":1621869674,"created_at_utc_B":1621873677,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"General first-time teaching advice - accept the nervousness\/anxiety. Trying to fight it will just be crippling\/exhausting. You know the material (hopefully), now you just have to keep calm enough to communicate it effectively. Accept that you're going to stutter, trip over a word or 2, or just flub a whole goddamn sentence\/thought. It's ok to pause for a moment and take a breath. 12th graders are a bunch of assholes, so some of them will give you shit about it, but just shrug it off. It happens. I say this because I still remember my first semester teaching in grad school. Was teaching Gen. Bio., so most of my class were all first-term freshmen (basically 12.5 graders). I came in with that mindset of \"I'm barely older than them, I need to be fucking *on it*. WRONG. I had a mini-panic attack midway through a sentence, needed to take 2 mins to recompose myself. I calmed down, got through the day, got comfortable as the semester went on. We had a good laugh about it at the end of the semester. The worst pressure is the pressure you put on yourself. You're not going to be perfect at the start, that's ok. ... just don't read directly from your slides.","human_ref_B":"This is a good question with a lot of good responses from others. I think something missing from other responses is your school's expectations for this class. The big things to keep in mind for this are mathematical rigor, lab work rigor, and delivery expectations. We all know that the big thing that scares away students from physics is the mathematics. Yet, people who teach physics often love the math. This often causes a disconnect with the teacher and the majority of the student population. Before you go deep into planning be aware of the mathematical prerequisites for your course and what math content has been discussed for your students by the time they get to you. For example, my class is based off of understandings from Algebra I. As such, I don't do trig functions and resultant forces for my class. I would love to do it, but I also don't want to teach trigonometry for 2 weeks to get there. When I mentioned lab rigor earlier, this is another expectation you'll need to clarify from your colleagues. Hopefully your science department has discussed vertical planning and the skills necessary for the students at your school to succeed in the science classes your students already took. Figure out from there what you should expect your students to know and what you can build upon. Ask your colleagues questions like: Do they actually know how to make a scale of a graph by hand? How about a trendline? Have they made computers do graph everything for them? Would teaching them some spreadsheet skills be useful? How many full blown lab reports have the students written before your class? etc. Delivery expectations boils down to how did your students learn science in the previous grades? Was there a lot of lecture? Projects? Worksheets? Discussions? I was trained to teach using discussions and projects. But, one of my worst school years ever was when I moved to a new school that wasn't ready for this. The 12th graders I taught were used to taking notes on a lecture and doing worksheets. Me trying to asking what they think about physics phenomena and discussing it was seen as \"Not teaching!\" and worthy of mutiny. The rest of the year was a wash. You should know how the kids have worked on science in the past and modify it slightly to fit you. You're not ready to rock the boat, even if it desperately needs to be rocked. Teaching physics is incredibly rewarding, fun, and joyful. Welcome to the club! There aren't enough of us out there.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4003.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gzadqp7","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621873677,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"This is a good question with a lot of good responses from others. I think something missing from other responses is your school's expectations for this class. The big things to keep in mind for this are mathematical rigor, lab work rigor, and delivery expectations. We all know that the big thing that scares away students from physics is the mathematics. Yet, people who teach physics often love the math. This often causes a disconnect with the teacher and the majority of the student population. Before you go deep into planning be aware of the mathematical prerequisites for your course and what math content has been discussed for your students by the time they get to you. For example, my class is based off of understandings from Algebra I. As such, I don't do trig functions and resultant forces for my class. I would love to do it, but I also don't want to teach trigonometry for 2 weeks to get there. When I mentioned lab rigor earlier, this is another expectation you'll need to clarify from your colleagues. Hopefully your science department has discussed vertical planning and the skills necessary for the students at your school to succeed in the science classes your students already took. Figure out from there what you should expect your students to know and what you can build upon. Ask your colleagues questions like: Do they actually know how to make a scale of a graph by hand? How about a trendline? Have they made computers do graph everything for them? Would teaching them some spreadsheet skills be useful? How many full blown lab reports have the students written before your class? etc. Delivery expectations boils down to how did your students learn science in the previous grades? Was there a lot of lecture? Projects? Worksheets? Discussions? I was trained to teach using discussions and projects. But, one of my worst school years ever was when I moved to a new school that wasn't ready for this. The 12th graders I taught were used to taking notes on a lecture and doing worksheets. Me trying to asking what they think about physics phenomena and discussing it was seen as \"Not teaching!\" and worthy of mutiny. The rest of the year was a wash. You should know how the kids have worked on science in the past and modify it slightly to fit you. You're not ready to rock the boat, even if it desperately needs to be rocked. Teaching physics is incredibly rewarding, fun, and joyful. Welcome to the club! There aren't enough of us out there.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11980.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzadqp7","c_root_id_B":"gza4oda","created_at_utc_A":1621873677,"created_at_utc_B":1621869564,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This is a good question with a lot of good responses from others. I think something missing from other responses is your school's expectations for this class. The big things to keep in mind for this are mathematical rigor, lab work rigor, and delivery expectations. We all know that the big thing that scares away students from physics is the mathematics. Yet, people who teach physics often love the math. This often causes a disconnect with the teacher and the majority of the student population. Before you go deep into planning be aware of the mathematical prerequisites for your course and what math content has been discussed for your students by the time they get to you. For example, my class is based off of understandings from Algebra I. As such, I don't do trig functions and resultant forces for my class. I would love to do it, but I also don't want to teach trigonometry for 2 weeks to get there. When I mentioned lab rigor earlier, this is another expectation you'll need to clarify from your colleagues. Hopefully your science department has discussed vertical planning and the skills necessary for the students at your school to succeed in the science classes your students already took. Figure out from there what you should expect your students to know and what you can build upon. Ask your colleagues questions like: Do they actually know how to make a scale of a graph by hand? How about a trendline? Have they made computers do graph everything for them? Would teaching them some spreadsheet skills be useful? How many full blown lab reports have the students written before your class? etc. Delivery expectations boils down to how did your students learn science in the previous grades? Was there a lot of lecture? Projects? Worksheets? Discussions? I was trained to teach using discussions and projects. But, one of my worst school years ever was when I moved to a new school that wasn't ready for this. The 12th graders I taught were used to taking notes on a lecture and doing worksheets. Me trying to asking what they think about physics phenomena and discussing it was seen as \"Not teaching!\" and worthy of mutiny. The rest of the year was a wash. You should know how the kids have worked on science in the past and modify it slightly to fit you. You're not ready to rock the boat, even if it desperately needs to be rocked. Teaching physics is incredibly rewarding, fun, and joyful. Welcome to the club! There aren't enough of us out there.","human_ref_B":"Less \"rigor,\" more joy. Less confirmation labs, more exploration. As much PBL\/Inquiry as possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4113.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzadqp7","c_root_id_B":"gza90w7","created_at_utc_A":1621873677,"created_at_utc_B":1621871584,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This is a good question with a lot of good responses from others. I think something missing from other responses is your school's expectations for this class. The big things to keep in mind for this are mathematical rigor, lab work rigor, and delivery expectations. We all know that the big thing that scares away students from physics is the mathematics. Yet, people who teach physics often love the math. This often causes a disconnect with the teacher and the majority of the student population. Before you go deep into planning be aware of the mathematical prerequisites for your course and what math content has been discussed for your students by the time they get to you. For example, my class is based off of understandings from Algebra I. As such, I don't do trig functions and resultant forces for my class. I would love to do it, but I also don't want to teach trigonometry for 2 weeks to get there. When I mentioned lab rigor earlier, this is another expectation you'll need to clarify from your colleagues. Hopefully your science department has discussed vertical planning and the skills necessary for the students at your school to succeed in the science classes your students already took. Figure out from there what you should expect your students to know and what you can build upon. Ask your colleagues questions like: Do they actually know how to make a scale of a graph by hand? How about a trendline? Have they made computers do graph everything for them? Would teaching them some spreadsheet skills be useful? How many full blown lab reports have the students written before your class? etc. Delivery expectations boils down to how did your students learn science in the previous grades? Was there a lot of lecture? Projects? Worksheets? Discussions? I was trained to teach using discussions and projects. But, one of my worst school years ever was when I moved to a new school that wasn't ready for this. The 12th graders I taught were used to taking notes on a lecture and doing worksheets. Me trying to asking what they think about physics phenomena and discussing it was seen as \"Not teaching!\" and worthy of mutiny. The rest of the year was a wash. You should know how the kids have worked on science in the past and modify it slightly to fit you. You're not ready to rock the boat, even if it desperately needs to be rocked. Teaching physics is incredibly rewarding, fun, and joyful. Welcome to the club! There aren't enough of us out there.","human_ref_B":"\u201cWhy\u201d is just as important as \u201chow.\u201d Explaining the reason behind events can help them to learn and memorize material. For example, when teaching electromagnetism, give quantum explanations, or for gravity, talk about space-time curvature (qualitatively of course)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2093.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9q5ga","c_root_id_B":"gz9oo69","created_at_utc_A":1621862520,"created_at_utc_B":1621861697,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"As noted: anxiety about teaching is normal. For most people it fades as you do it a bit, but there's always a little bit of something for each new class. My advice? Watch Walter Lewin's MIT lecture series. Obviously, physical constraints and a school board will prevent you from stealing most of his content -- but as a source of inspiration for how to engage students? Excellent. You likely have a designated outline of the material that needs to be taught, as dictated by the state. Combined with the AP test content list, that's what students \"need to know\" by the end. Ideally we'd like students to be more on the \"how to manipulate equations and get results\" rather than \"memorize every variation on the theme\". Anything else is specific to student needs, or general teaching advice.","human_ref_B":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":823.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gz9tdbx","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621864195,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"Just curious, what is your background? I might suggest looking at The Mechanical Universe The series might seem a little dated now, but the physics is still very solid and might help you get over the humps of understanding.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2498.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gz9xonq","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621866298,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"I think what would be helpful is to keep reinforcing big picture concepts that appear over and over. Like one type of energy being converted to another.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4601.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gz9z9r8","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621867064,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"The concepts of introductory physics are **SO** simple (energy at point a = energy at point b, two colliding objects don't gain or lose momentum, you can't get more work than heat, push on something and it moves \/ sum F = ma, etc). However, the notation and the jargon can be overwhelming. Educators sometimes try to make something or themselves seem more impressive or important by making up big words and getting fancy. Keep it simple and make it real. Physics is about finding the simplest, most eloquent explanation of how the universe works. There are lots of versions of the \"barmaid\" quote - some of them might have actually been uttered! Here's one: \u201cA scientist who can\u2019t explain his theories to a barmaid doesn\u2019t really understand them.\u201d \u2014 Ernest Rutherford (c.1915) (More at http:\/\/www.eoht.info\/page\/Barmaid%20physics#:\\~:text=%E2%80%9CIf%20a%20piece%20of%20physics,a%20good%20piece%20of%20physics.%E2%80%9D&text=%E2%80%9CA%20scientist%20who%20can't,'t%20really%20understand%20them.%E2%80%9D)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5367.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gza4x4u","c_root_id_B":"gz9oo69","created_at_utc_A":1621869674,"created_at_utc_B":1621861697,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"General first-time teaching advice - accept the nervousness\/anxiety. Trying to fight it will just be crippling\/exhausting. You know the material (hopefully), now you just have to keep calm enough to communicate it effectively. Accept that you're going to stutter, trip over a word or 2, or just flub a whole goddamn sentence\/thought. It's ok to pause for a moment and take a breath. 12th graders are a bunch of assholes, so some of them will give you shit about it, but just shrug it off. It happens. I say this because I still remember my first semester teaching in grad school. Was teaching Gen. Bio., so most of my class were all first-term freshmen (basically 12.5 graders). I came in with that mindset of \"I'm barely older than them, I need to be fucking *on it*. WRONG. I had a mini-panic attack midway through a sentence, needed to take 2 mins to recompose myself. I calmed down, got through the day, got comfortable as the semester went on. We had a good laugh about it at the end of the semester. The worst pressure is the pressure you put on yourself. You're not going to be perfect at the start, that's ok. ... just don't read directly from your slides.","human_ref_B":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7977.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gza4x4u","c_root_id_B":"gza4oda","created_at_utc_A":1621869674,"created_at_utc_B":1621869564,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"General first-time teaching advice - accept the nervousness\/anxiety. Trying to fight it will just be crippling\/exhausting. You know the material (hopefully), now you just have to keep calm enough to communicate it effectively. Accept that you're going to stutter, trip over a word or 2, or just flub a whole goddamn sentence\/thought. It's ok to pause for a moment and take a breath. 12th graders are a bunch of assholes, so some of them will give you shit about it, but just shrug it off. It happens. I say this because I still remember my first semester teaching in grad school. Was teaching Gen. Bio., so most of my class were all first-term freshmen (basically 12.5 graders). I came in with that mindset of \"I'm barely older than them, I need to be fucking *on it*. WRONG. I had a mini-panic attack midway through a sentence, needed to take 2 mins to recompose myself. I calmed down, got through the day, got comfortable as the semester went on. We had a good laugh about it at the end of the semester. The worst pressure is the pressure you put on yourself. You're not going to be perfect at the start, that's ok. ... just don't read directly from your slides.","human_ref_B":"Less \"rigor,\" more joy. Less confirmation labs, more exploration. As much PBL\/Inquiry as possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":110.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gzagqka","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621874991,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"I teach physics 11 and 12, and can agree with most of the things said here. As for being nervous, you should be. If you were not nervous and did not worry about making mistakes and talking people out of losing your subject, then you are not in the right field. Almost any teacher knows that the most important thing is having a good relationship with the students. Once they respect you (and that should not be automatic, you need to earn it just like they need to earn your respect) and hopefully like you, you can teach them anything, because they want to learn from you. The best part about teaching physics is that you know all of the students made a specifically choice to take that class and you will not have dead weight.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13294.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzagqka","c_root_id_B":"gza4oda","created_at_utc_A":1621874991,"created_at_utc_B":1621869564,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I teach physics 11 and 12, and can agree with most of the things said here. As for being nervous, you should be. If you were not nervous and did not worry about making mistakes and talking people out of losing your subject, then you are not in the right field. Almost any teacher knows that the most important thing is having a good relationship with the students. Once they respect you (and that should not be automatic, you need to earn it just like they need to earn your respect) and hopefully like you, you can teach them anything, because they want to learn from you. The best part about teaching physics is that you know all of the students made a specifically choice to take that class and you will not have dead weight.","human_ref_B":"Less \"rigor,\" more joy. Less confirmation labs, more exploration. As much PBL\/Inquiry as possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5427.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzagqka","c_root_id_B":"gza90w7","created_at_utc_A":1621874991,"created_at_utc_B":1621871584,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I teach physics 11 and 12, and can agree with most of the things said here. As for being nervous, you should be. If you were not nervous and did not worry about making mistakes and talking people out of losing your subject, then you are not in the right field. Almost any teacher knows that the most important thing is having a good relationship with the students. Once they respect you (and that should not be automatic, you need to earn it just like they need to earn your respect) and hopefully like you, you can teach them anything, because they want to learn from you. The best part about teaching physics is that you know all of the students made a specifically choice to take that class and you will not have dead weight.","human_ref_B":"\u201cWhy\u201d is just as important as \u201chow.\u201d Explaining the reason behind events can help them to learn and memorize material. For example, when teaching electromagnetism, give quantum explanations, or for gravity, talk about space-time curvature (qualitatively of course)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3407.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gzar2bi","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621879352,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"I've been teaching high school physics for 16 years. As others have said, it's very important that a) you prepare well enough to know what you're talking about and b) don't bullshit if you don't know an answer. Also, it's very important to make your topic for a given day relevant to your students. So you should try to design your lesson with a hook of some sort, i.e. why they should care. It's helpful to curate a list of resources to hook your students with. These can include: a) a real-world situation that's fascinating and relevant (accidents are good for this) b) an interesting demonstration (always ask for a prediction!) c) a short youtube clip or d) a small-group discussion\/prediction question. Getting your students engaged is your number one priority everyday. If you can do that, you're more than half-way to success.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17655.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gza4oda","c_root_id_B":"gzar2bi","created_at_utc_A":1621869564,"created_at_utc_B":1621879352,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Less \"rigor,\" more joy. Less confirmation labs, more exploration. As much PBL\/Inquiry as possible.","human_ref_B":"I've been teaching high school physics for 16 years. As others have said, it's very important that a) you prepare well enough to know what you're talking about and b) don't bullshit if you don't know an answer. Also, it's very important to make your topic for a given day relevant to your students. So you should try to design your lesson with a hook of some sort, i.e. why they should care. It's helpful to curate a list of resources to hook your students with. These can include: a) a real-world situation that's fascinating and relevant (accidents are good for this) b) an interesting demonstration (always ask for a prediction!) c) a short youtube clip or d) a small-group discussion\/prediction question. Getting your students engaged is your number one priority everyday. If you can do that, you're more than half-way to success.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9788.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gza90w7","c_root_id_B":"gzar2bi","created_at_utc_A":1621871584,"created_at_utc_B":1621879352,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"\u201cWhy\u201d is just as important as \u201chow.\u201d Explaining the reason behind events can help them to learn and memorize material. For example, when teaching electromagnetism, give quantum explanations, or for gravity, talk about space-time curvature (qualitatively of course)","human_ref_B":"I've been teaching high school physics for 16 years. As others have said, it's very important that a) you prepare well enough to know what you're talking about and b) don't bullshit if you don't know an answer. Also, it's very important to make your topic for a given day relevant to your students. So you should try to design your lesson with a hook of some sort, i.e. why they should care. It's helpful to curate a list of resources to hook your students with. These can include: a) a real-world situation that's fascinating and relevant (accidents are good for this) b) an interesting demonstration (always ask for a prediction!) c) a short youtube clip or d) a small-group discussion\/prediction question. Getting your students engaged is your number one priority everyday. If you can do that, you're more than half-way to success.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7768.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzar2bi","c_root_id_B":"gzaoy4w","created_at_utc_A":1621879352,"created_at_utc_B":1621878425,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I've been teaching high school physics for 16 years. As others have said, it's very important that a) you prepare well enough to know what you're talking about and b) don't bullshit if you don't know an answer. Also, it's very important to make your topic for a given day relevant to your students. So you should try to design your lesson with a hook of some sort, i.e. why they should care. It's helpful to curate a list of resources to hook your students with. These can include: a) a real-world situation that's fascinating and relevant (accidents are good for this) b) an interesting demonstration (always ask for a prediction!) c) a short youtube clip or d) a small-group discussion\/prediction question. Getting your students engaged is your number one priority everyday. If you can do that, you're more than half-way to success.","human_ref_B":"Please do experiments. Eaven if it's showing the effect of gravity on a pen by literally just letting it go, it's a start. Ik those are 12th graders so it isn't that simple but showing what you are referencing with the equasions is really helpful and engaging. Math is REALLY important for physics but showing the implementation of it in the real world can help understand and process the topic way better.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":927.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gz9oo69","c_root_id_B":"gzbj0ok","created_at_utc_A":1621861697,"created_at_utc_B":1621891773,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Don't fear to show that you love your subject. This is what motivates many students, at least I think so. Also positive reinforcement of my own curiosity. It's always cooler to explore and figure out stuff yourself rather than getting a lecture. And don't take it personally if some students simply don't like physics no matter how hard you try to make it interesting. Physics isn't for anybody just like languages, art, music etc. and that is fine.","human_ref_B":"I just finished my first year as a full-time adjunct at a university in the USA. I've taught lectures and labs in grad school. **PREPARE EARLY!** Get organized WAY early. Do as much work up-front as you possibly can. Stick to the schedule. Have a daily\/topical schedule for yourself and don't ever get a week behind. It's so hard to have time for great new ideas when you're behind. **Math anxiety is real and alive. Normalize it early to deflate it.** Stronger math students can learn by explaining things to weaker math students, who in turn benefit from getting a different perspective. The weaker math students can give feedback to the stronger math students as to whether their explanation was helpful or not. If you point this out, you can make a strong case that we all have lots to learn and lots to offer each other, which helps dismantle senses of superiority\/inferiority (be careful, this is sensitive). Many ppl you teach might not take or pass the physics GRE, but it helps them when taking college physics later for their major. Give students a little time to work together in small groups on something they\u2019ll turn in. **Students can put up with some so-so teaching if you make it fun and engaging.** Demos make SO much difference! Get to know students well. **Show them that you care.** If nothing else, make a big effort to get to know every person's name. That makes a world of difference to them. Those are the teachers that make a difference in students' lives. Don't expect them to read the book. If you want them to, hold them accountable somehow. Lots of websites like Chegg offer services to do students homework for them. I\u2019ve found some of labs on these sites as well as online exam questions. \ud83d\ude20 Be able to recommend some tutoring services. Remind students that THEY are responsible for their own learning and that your role is to help guide them. They\u2019ll get out what they put in. Clickers go a long way at helping students gauge their understanding! Students really seem to like them, too. I limit points to about 80% of the max total points at the end of the semester and don\u2019t allow make-up points. This gives everyone built-in grace. I also give 0.75 pts for a wrong answer and 1.0 pts for a correct answer to encourage them to guess and engage. It works very well! **Have a place to share additional resources.** I'm very up-front with my students that I'm not the best physics teacher in the whole world (but I try to be\u2014wink!), and even if I were, not everything I say will make perfect sense right away. It takes study on their part, and sometimes it helps to hear things from a different perspective \u2014 so I curate a list of useful resources that they can go to if they have questions about a given topic. I have links for every chapter to relevant pages on other tutorial sites (KhanAcademy, OpenStax, etc.), online demos\/simulations (PhET, falstad.com, etc.), worked example problems (Khan Academy, YouTube, others), and video demonstrations (usually YouTube). Students REALLY appreciate that! **Take the temperature of the class every once in a while.** Ask students at the end of class to write down on an index card 3 things they learned, two questions they have, and one thing they appreciated about the class. This makes students reflect and recall (boosting retention), is super-quick to grade, can be used to take attendance, and gives you excellent feedback. Do this often, and it can be awesome. Rubrics take a bit of time to write, but save you time when grading later. They also make the assignment guidelines clear to students. They can't say \"oh, my teacher just doesn't like my approach\" \u2014 you can show exactly where they got points taken off. I've found them to be very worthwhile! (Don't forget to say something about clarity\/neatness\/style\/grammar\/etc.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30076.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gza4oda","c_root_id_B":"gzbj0ok","created_at_utc_A":1621869564,"created_at_utc_B":1621891773,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Less \"rigor,\" more joy. Less confirmation labs, more exploration. As much PBL\/Inquiry as possible.","human_ref_B":"I just finished my first year as a full-time adjunct at a university in the USA. I've taught lectures and labs in grad school. **PREPARE EARLY!** Get organized WAY early. Do as much work up-front as you possibly can. Stick to the schedule. Have a daily\/topical schedule for yourself and don't ever get a week behind. It's so hard to have time for great new ideas when you're behind. **Math anxiety is real and alive. Normalize it early to deflate it.** Stronger math students can learn by explaining things to weaker math students, who in turn benefit from getting a different perspective. The weaker math students can give feedback to the stronger math students as to whether their explanation was helpful or not. If you point this out, you can make a strong case that we all have lots to learn and lots to offer each other, which helps dismantle senses of superiority\/inferiority (be careful, this is sensitive). Many ppl you teach might not take or pass the physics GRE, but it helps them when taking college physics later for their major. Give students a little time to work together in small groups on something they\u2019ll turn in. **Students can put up with some so-so teaching if you make it fun and engaging.** Demos make SO much difference! Get to know students well. **Show them that you care.** If nothing else, make a big effort to get to know every person's name. That makes a world of difference to them. Those are the teachers that make a difference in students' lives. Don't expect them to read the book. If you want them to, hold them accountable somehow. Lots of websites like Chegg offer services to do students homework for them. I\u2019ve found some of labs on these sites as well as online exam questions. \ud83d\ude20 Be able to recommend some tutoring services. Remind students that THEY are responsible for their own learning and that your role is to help guide them. They\u2019ll get out what they put in. Clickers go a long way at helping students gauge their understanding! Students really seem to like them, too. I limit points to about 80% of the max total points at the end of the semester and don\u2019t allow make-up points. This gives everyone built-in grace. I also give 0.75 pts for a wrong answer and 1.0 pts for a correct answer to encourage them to guess and engage. It works very well! **Have a place to share additional resources.** I'm very up-front with my students that I'm not the best physics teacher in the whole world (but I try to be\u2014wink!), and even if I were, not everything I say will make perfect sense right away. It takes study on their part, and sometimes it helps to hear things from a different perspective \u2014 so I curate a list of useful resources that they can go to if they have questions about a given topic. I have links for every chapter to relevant pages on other tutorial sites (KhanAcademy, OpenStax, etc.), online demos\/simulations (PhET, falstad.com, etc.), worked example problems (Khan Academy, YouTube, others), and video demonstrations (usually YouTube). Students REALLY appreciate that! **Take the temperature of the class every once in a while.** Ask students at the end of class to write down on an index card 3 things they learned, two questions they have, and one thing they appreciated about the class. This makes students reflect and recall (boosting retention), is super-quick to grade, can be used to take attendance, and gives you excellent feedback. Do this often, and it can be awesome. Rubrics take a bit of time to write, but save you time when grading later. They also make the assignment guidelines clear to students. They can't say \"oh, my teacher just doesn't like my approach\" \u2014 you can show exactly where they got points taken off. I've found them to be very worthwhile! (Don't forget to say something about clarity\/neatness\/style\/grammar\/etc.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22209.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gza90w7","c_root_id_B":"gzbj0ok","created_at_utc_A":1621871584,"created_at_utc_B":1621891773,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"\u201cWhy\u201d is just as important as \u201chow.\u201d Explaining the reason behind events can help them to learn and memorize material. For example, when teaching electromagnetism, give quantum explanations, or for gravity, talk about space-time curvature (qualitatively of course)","human_ref_B":"I just finished my first year as a full-time adjunct at a university in the USA. I've taught lectures and labs in grad school. **PREPARE EARLY!** Get organized WAY early. Do as much work up-front as you possibly can. Stick to the schedule. Have a daily\/topical schedule for yourself and don't ever get a week behind. It's so hard to have time for great new ideas when you're behind. **Math anxiety is real and alive. Normalize it early to deflate it.** Stronger math students can learn by explaining things to weaker math students, who in turn benefit from getting a different perspective. The weaker math students can give feedback to the stronger math students as to whether their explanation was helpful or not. If you point this out, you can make a strong case that we all have lots to learn and lots to offer each other, which helps dismantle senses of superiority\/inferiority (be careful, this is sensitive). Many ppl you teach might not take or pass the physics GRE, but it helps them when taking college physics later for their major. Give students a little time to work together in small groups on something they\u2019ll turn in. **Students can put up with some so-so teaching if you make it fun and engaging.** Demos make SO much difference! Get to know students well. **Show them that you care.** If nothing else, make a big effort to get to know every person's name. That makes a world of difference to them. Those are the teachers that make a difference in students' lives. Don't expect them to read the book. If you want them to, hold them accountable somehow. Lots of websites like Chegg offer services to do students homework for them. I\u2019ve found some of labs on these sites as well as online exam questions. \ud83d\ude20 Be able to recommend some tutoring services. Remind students that THEY are responsible for their own learning and that your role is to help guide them. They\u2019ll get out what they put in. Clickers go a long way at helping students gauge their understanding! Students really seem to like them, too. I limit points to about 80% of the max total points at the end of the semester and don\u2019t allow make-up points. This gives everyone built-in grace. I also give 0.75 pts for a wrong answer and 1.0 pts for a correct answer to encourage them to guess and engage. It works very well! **Have a place to share additional resources.** I'm very up-front with my students that I'm not the best physics teacher in the whole world (but I try to be\u2014wink!), and even if I were, not everything I say will make perfect sense right away. It takes study on their part, and sometimes it helps to hear things from a different perspective \u2014 so I curate a list of useful resources that they can go to if they have questions about a given topic. I have links for every chapter to relevant pages on other tutorial sites (KhanAcademy, OpenStax, etc.), online demos\/simulations (PhET, falstad.com, etc.), worked example problems (Khan Academy, YouTube, others), and video demonstrations (usually YouTube). Students REALLY appreciate that! **Take the temperature of the class every once in a while.** Ask students at the end of class to write down on an index card 3 things they learned, two questions they have, and one thing they appreciated about the class. This makes students reflect and recall (boosting retention), is super-quick to grade, can be used to take attendance, and gives you excellent feedback. Do this often, and it can be awesome. Rubrics take a bit of time to write, but save you time when grading later. They also make the assignment guidelines clear to students. They can't say \"oh, my teacher just doesn't like my approach\" \u2014 you can show exactly where they got points taken off. I've found them to be very worthwhile! (Don't forget to say something about clarity\/neatness\/style\/grammar\/etc.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20189.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzbj0ok","c_root_id_B":"gzaoy4w","created_at_utc_A":1621891773,"created_at_utc_B":1621878425,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I just finished my first year as a full-time adjunct at a university in the USA. I've taught lectures and labs in grad school. **PREPARE EARLY!** Get organized WAY early. Do as much work up-front as you possibly can. Stick to the schedule. Have a daily\/topical schedule for yourself and don't ever get a week behind. It's so hard to have time for great new ideas when you're behind. **Math anxiety is real and alive. Normalize it early to deflate it.** Stronger math students can learn by explaining things to weaker math students, who in turn benefit from getting a different perspective. The weaker math students can give feedback to the stronger math students as to whether their explanation was helpful or not. If you point this out, you can make a strong case that we all have lots to learn and lots to offer each other, which helps dismantle senses of superiority\/inferiority (be careful, this is sensitive). Many ppl you teach might not take or pass the physics GRE, but it helps them when taking college physics later for their major. Give students a little time to work together in small groups on something they\u2019ll turn in. **Students can put up with some so-so teaching if you make it fun and engaging.** Demos make SO much difference! Get to know students well. **Show them that you care.** If nothing else, make a big effort to get to know every person's name. That makes a world of difference to them. Those are the teachers that make a difference in students' lives. Don't expect them to read the book. If you want them to, hold them accountable somehow. Lots of websites like Chegg offer services to do students homework for them. I\u2019ve found some of labs on these sites as well as online exam questions. \ud83d\ude20 Be able to recommend some tutoring services. Remind students that THEY are responsible for their own learning and that your role is to help guide them. They\u2019ll get out what they put in. Clickers go a long way at helping students gauge their understanding! Students really seem to like them, too. I limit points to about 80% of the max total points at the end of the semester and don\u2019t allow make-up points. This gives everyone built-in grace. I also give 0.75 pts for a wrong answer and 1.0 pts for a correct answer to encourage them to guess and engage. It works very well! **Have a place to share additional resources.** I'm very up-front with my students that I'm not the best physics teacher in the whole world (but I try to be\u2014wink!), and even if I were, not everything I say will make perfect sense right away. It takes study on their part, and sometimes it helps to hear things from a different perspective \u2014 so I curate a list of useful resources that they can go to if they have questions about a given topic. I have links for every chapter to relevant pages on other tutorial sites (KhanAcademy, OpenStax, etc.), online demos\/simulations (PhET, falstad.com, etc.), worked example problems (Khan Academy, YouTube, others), and video demonstrations (usually YouTube). Students REALLY appreciate that! **Take the temperature of the class every once in a while.** Ask students at the end of class to write down on an index card 3 things they learned, two questions they have, and one thing they appreciated about the class. This makes students reflect and recall (boosting retention), is super-quick to grade, can be used to take attendance, and gives you excellent feedback. Do this often, and it can be awesome. Rubrics take a bit of time to write, but save you time when grading later. They also make the assignment guidelines clear to students. They can't say \"oh, my teacher just doesn't like my approach\" \u2014 you can show exactly where they got points taken off. I've found them to be very worthwhile! (Don't forget to say something about clarity\/neatness\/style\/grammar\/etc.)","human_ref_B":"Please do experiments. Eaven if it's showing the effect of gravity on a pen by literally just letting it go, it's a start. Ik those are 12th graders so it isn't that simple but showing what you are referencing with the equasions is really helpful and engaging. Math is REALLY important for physics but showing the implementation of it in the real world can help understand and process the topic way better.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13348.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzbj0ok","c_root_id_B":"gzavrxq","created_at_utc_A":1621891773,"created_at_utc_B":1621881392,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I just finished my first year as a full-time adjunct at a university in the USA. I've taught lectures and labs in grad school. **PREPARE EARLY!** Get organized WAY early. Do as much work up-front as you possibly can. Stick to the schedule. Have a daily\/topical schedule for yourself and don't ever get a week behind. It's so hard to have time for great new ideas when you're behind. **Math anxiety is real and alive. Normalize it early to deflate it.** Stronger math students can learn by explaining things to weaker math students, who in turn benefit from getting a different perspective. The weaker math students can give feedback to the stronger math students as to whether their explanation was helpful or not. If you point this out, you can make a strong case that we all have lots to learn and lots to offer each other, which helps dismantle senses of superiority\/inferiority (be careful, this is sensitive). Many ppl you teach might not take or pass the physics GRE, but it helps them when taking college physics later for their major. Give students a little time to work together in small groups on something they\u2019ll turn in. **Students can put up with some so-so teaching if you make it fun and engaging.** Demos make SO much difference! Get to know students well. **Show them that you care.** If nothing else, make a big effort to get to know every person's name. That makes a world of difference to them. Those are the teachers that make a difference in students' lives. Don't expect them to read the book. If you want them to, hold them accountable somehow. Lots of websites like Chegg offer services to do students homework for them. I\u2019ve found some of labs on these sites as well as online exam questions. \ud83d\ude20 Be able to recommend some tutoring services. Remind students that THEY are responsible for their own learning and that your role is to help guide them. They\u2019ll get out what they put in. Clickers go a long way at helping students gauge their understanding! Students really seem to like them, too. I limit points to about 80% of the max total points at the end of the semester and don\u2019t allow make-up points. This gives everyone built-in grace. I also give 0.75 pts for a wrong answer and 1.0 pts for a correct answer to encourage them to guess and engage. It works very well! **Have a place to share additional resources.** I'm very up-front with my students that I'm not the best physics teacher in the whole world (but I try to be\u2014wink!), and even if I were, not everything I say will make perfect sense right away. It takes study on their part, and sometimes it helps to hear things from a different perspective \u2014 so I curate a list of useful resources that they can go to if they have questions about a given topic. I have links for every chapter to relevant pages on other tutorial sites (KhanAcademy, OpenStax, etc.), online demos\/simulations (PhET, falstad.com, etc.), worked example problems (Khan Academy, YouTube, others), and video demonstrations (usually YouTube). Students REALLY appreciate that! **Take the temperature of the class every once in a while.** Ask students at the end of class to write down on an index card 3 things they learned, two questions they have, and one thing they appreciated about the class. This makes students reflect and recall (boosting retention), is super-quick to grade, can be used to take attendance, and gives you excellent feedback. Do this often, and it can be awesome. Rubrics take a bit of time to write, but save you time when grading later. They also make the assignment guidelines clear to students. They can't say \"oh, my teacher just doesn't like my approach\" \u2014 you can show exactly where they got points taken off. I've found them to be very worthwhile! (Don't forget to say something about clarity\/neatness\/style\/grammar\/etc.)","human_ref_B":"Rule number one: Dont forget to tell them your name. Often the new teaches forgot that and then got a bad nockname.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10381.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzbj0ok","c_root_id_B":"gzb4nwn","created_at_utc_A":1621891773,"created_at_utc_B":1621885217,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I just finished my first year as a full-time adjunct at a university in the USA. I've taught lectures and labs in grad school. **PREPARE EARLY!** Get organized WAY early. Do as much work up-front as you possibly can. Stick to the schedule. Have a daily\/topical schedule for yourself and don't ever get a week behind. It's so hard to have time for great new ideas when you're behind. **Math anxiety is real and alive. Normalize it early to deflate it.** Stronger math students can learn by explaining things to weaker math students, who in turn benefit from getting a different perspective. The weaker math students can give feedback to the stronger math students as to whether their explanation was helpful or not. If you point this out, you can make a strong case that we all have lots to learn and lots to offer each other, which helps dismantle senses of superiority\/inferiority (be careful, this is sensitive). Many ppl you teach might not take or pass the physics GRE, but it helps them when taking college physics later for their major. Give students a little time to work together in small groups on something they\u2019ll turn in. **Students can put up with some so-so teaching if you make it fun and engaging.** Demos make SO much difference! Get to know students well. **Show them that you care.** If nothing else, make a big effort to get to know every person's name. That makes a world of difference to them. Those are the teachers that make a difference in students' lives. Don't expect them to read the book. If you want them to, hold them accountable somehow. Lots of websites like Chegg offer services to do students homework for them. I\u2019ve found some of labs on these sites as well as online exam questions. \ud83d\ude20 Be able to recommend some tutoring services. Remind students that THEY are responsible for their own learning and that your role is to help guide them. They\u2019ll get out what they put in. Clickers go a long way at helping students gauge their understanding! Students really seem to like them, too. I limit points to about 80% of the max total points at the end of the semester and don\u2019t allow make-up points. This gives everyone built-in grace. I also give 0.75 pts for a wrong answer and 1.0 pts for a correct answer to encourage them to guess and engage. It works very well! **Have a place to share additional resources.** I'm very up-front with my students that I'm not the best physics teacher in the whole world (but I try to be\u2014wink!), and even if I were, not everything I say will make perfect sense right away. It takes study on their part, and sometimes it helps to hear things from a different perspective \u2014 so I curate a list of useful resources that they can go to if they have questions about a given topic. I have links for every chapter to relevant pages on other tutorial sites (KhanAcademy, OpenStax, etc.), online demos\/simulations (PhET, falstad.com, etc.), worked example problems (Khan Academy, YouTube, others), and video demonstrations (usually YouTube). Students REALLY appreciate that! **Take the temperature of the class every once in a while.** Ask students at the end of class to write down on an index card 3 things they learned, two questions they have, and one thing they appreciated about the class. This makes students reflect and recall (boosting retention), is super-quick to grade, can be used to take attendance, and gives you excellent feedback. Do this often, and it can be awesome. Rubrics take a bit of time to write, but save you time when grading later. They also make the assignment guidelines clear to students. They can't say \"oh, my teacher just doesn't like my approach\" \u2014 you can show exactly where they got points taken off. I've found them to be very worthwhile! (Don't forget to say something about clarity\/neatness\/style\/grammar\/etc.)","human_ref_B":"Lot of replies so sorry if someone mentioned it. You will probably have a lot of students who are used to success in your class who are going to struggle because studying for physics requires a different approach than they are probably used to. I have had a lot of 4.0 juniors and seniors in my physics classes over the years and other than a few there were strong growing pains for them. I\u2019d say make sure they are aware of this going in. It\u2019s not that the class is too hard (at least no necessarily) or that they\u2019re bad at physics, but that they need a new approach.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6556.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzb7sxc","c_root_id_B":"gzbj0ok","created_at_utc_A":1621886626,"created_at_utc_B":1621891773,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"LOOSE DEADLINES!!! Kids these days learn when they do it, not when they cheat to meet a deadline","human_ref_B":"I just finished my first year as a full-time adjunct at a university in the USA. I've taught lectures and labs in grad school. **PREPARE EARLY!** Get organized WAY early. Do as much work up-front as you possibly can. Stick to the schedule. Have a daily\/topical schedule for yourself and don't ever get a week behind. It's so hard to have time for great new ideas when you're behind. **Math anxiety is real and alive. Normalize it early to deflate it.** Stronger math students can learn by explaining things to weaker math students, who in turn benefit from getting a different perspective. The weaker math students can give feedback to the stronger math students as to whether their explanation was helpful or not. If you point this out, you can make a strong case that we all have lots to learn and lots to offer each other, which helps dismantle senses of superiority\/inferiority (be careful, this is sensitive). Many ppl you teach might not take or pass the physics GRE, but it helps them when taking college physics later for their major. Give students a little time to work together in small groups on something they\u2019ll turn in. **Students can put up with some so-so teaching if you make it fun and engaging.** Demos make SO much difference! Get to know students well. **Show them that you care.** If nothing else, make a big effort to get to know every person's name. That makes a world of difference to them. Those are the teachers that make a difference in students' lives. Don't expect them to read the book. If you want them to, hold them accountable somehow. Lots of websites like Chegg offer services to do students homework for them. I\u2019ve found some of labs on these sites as well as online exam questions. \ud83d\ude20 Be able to recommend some tutoring services. Remind students that THEY are responsible for their own learning and that your role is to help guide them. They\u2019ll get out what they put in. Clickers go a long way at helping students gauge their understanding! Students really seem to like them, too. I limit points to about 80% of the max total points at the end of the semester and don\u2019t allow make-up points. This gives everyone built-in grace. I also give 0.75 pts for a wrong answer and 1.0 pts for a correct answer to encourage them to guess and engage. It works very well! **Have a place to share additional resources.** I'm very up-front with my students that I'm not the best physics teacher in the whole world (but I try to be\u2014wink!), and even if I were, not everything I say will make perfect sense right away. It takes study on their part, and sometimes it helps to hear things from a different perspective \u2014 so I curate a list of useful resources that they can go to if they have questions about a given topic. I have links for every chapter to relevant pages on other tutorial sites (KhanAcademy, OpenStax, etc.), online demos\/simulations (PhET, falstad.com, etc.), worked example problems (Khan Academy, YouTube, others), and video demonstrations (usually YouTube). Students REALLY appreciate that! **Take the temperature of the class every once in a while.** Ask students at the end of class to write down on an index card 3 things they learned, two questions they have, and one thing they appreciated about the class. This makes students reflect and recall (boosting retention), is super-quick to grade, can be used to take attendance, and gives you excellent feedback. Do this often, and it can be awesome. Rubrics take a bit of time to write, but save you time when grading later. They also make the assignment guidelines clear to students. They can't say \"oh, my teacher just doesn't like my approach\" \u2014 you can show exactly where they got points taken off. I've found them to be very worthwhile! (Don't forget to say something about clarity\/neatness\/style\/grammar\/etc.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5147.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"njufk7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Any advice for a soon to be 12 grade physics teacher Hello fellow Redditors, I am starting a new position in teaching physics for 12th graders. I have been extremely nervous about this job, I can\u2019t help but fear messing up and\/or causing someone to hate this subject or not being thorough enough when teaching. I really have the fear of not delivering adequately, it might be the anxiety talking however would be nice to see if anyone has any advice for me? What would u think u need from your physics teacher?","c_root_id_A":"gzbj0ok","c_root_id_B":"gzbcgbn","created_at_utc_A":1621891773,"created_at_utc_B":1621888750,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I just finished my first year as a full-time adjunct at a university in the USA. I've taught lectures and labs in grad school. **PREPARE EARLY!** Get organized WAY early. Do as much work up-front as you possibly can. Stick to the schedule. Have a daily\/topical schedule for yourself and don't ever get a week behind. It's so hard to have time for great new ideas when you're behind. **Math anxiety is real and alive. Normalize it early to deflate it.** Stronger math students can learn by explaining things to weaker math students, who in turn benefit from getting a different perspective. The weaker math students can give feedback to the stronger math students as to whether their explanation was helpful or not. If you point this out, you can make a strong case that we all have lots to learn and lots to offer each other, which helps dismantle senses of superiority\/inferiority (be careful, this is sensitive). Many ppl you teach might not take or pass the physics GRE, but it helps them when taking college physics later for their major. Give students a little time to work together in small groups on something they\u2019ll turn in. **Students can put up with some so-so teaching if you make it fun and engaging.** Demos make SO much difference! Get to know students well. **Show them that you care.** If nothing else, make a big effort to get to know every person's name. That makes a world of difference to them. Those are the teachers that make a difference in students' lives. Don't expect them to read the book. If you want them to, hold them accountable somehow. Lots of websites like Chegg offer services to do students homework for them. I\u2019ve found some of labs on these sites as well as online exam questions. \ud83d\ude20 Be able to recommend some tutoring services. Remind students that THEY are responsible for their own learning and that your role is to help guide them. They\u2019ll get out what they put in. Clickers go a long way at helping students gauge their understanding! Students really seem to like them, too. I limit points to about 80% of the max total points at the end of the semester and don\u2019t allow make-up points. This gives everyone built-in grace. I also give 0.75 pts for a wrong answer and 1.0 pts for a correct answer to encourage them to guess and engage. It works very well! **Have a place to share additional resources.** I'm very up-front with my students that I'm not the best physics teacher in the whole world (but I try to be\u2014wink!), and even if I were, not everything I say will make perfect sense right away. It takes study on their part, and sometimes it helps to hear things from a different perspective \u2014 so I curate a list of useful resources that they can go to if they have questions about a given topic. I have links for every chapter to relevant pages on other tutorial sites (KhanAcademy, OpenStax, etc.), online demos\/simulations (PhET, falstad.com, etc.), worked example problems (Khan Academy, YouTube, others), and video demonstrations (usually YouTube). Students REALLY appreciate that! **Take the temperature of the class every once in a while.** Ask students at the end of class to write down on an index card 3 things they learned, two questions they have, and one thing they appreciated about the class. This makes students reflect and recall (boosting retention), is super-quick to grade, can be used to take attendance, and gives you excellent feedback. Do this often, and it can be awesome. Rubrics take a bit of time to write, but save you time when grading later. They also make the assignment guidelines clear to students. They can't say \"oh, my teacher just doesn't like my approach\" \u2014 you can show exactly where they got points taken off. I've found them to be very worthwhile! (Don't forget to say something about clarity\/neatness\/style\/grammar\/etc.)","human_ref_B":"Clear handwritten notes that you write during class and explain as you go along >>>>> lines of texts you wrote before class on the computer Had two different physics teachers for A levels and the difference was huge","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3023.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"jk12d1","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Let's just say I have no idea what color iron is, and someone gave me the exact atomic structure of the iron atom.can I in principles knows the color of iron from that? (assuming it's in its normal crystal structure under normal pressure and temperature for the sake of the argument) Using the same principle can we know the colour of certain compound knowing the structure of the atoms that's constructing the compound (I know the way the atoms bond to each other is relevant so can we also know that from knowing the atomic structure of all the atoms in the compound)","c_root_id_A":"gagkaus","c_root_id_B":"gag7feh","created_at_utc_A":1603945145,"created_at_utc_B":1603937025,"score_A":82,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"There are some very clever posts in this thread, but I just want to point out that these silvery rocks are iron(III) oxide, Fe2O3, aka hematite: https:\/\/www.healingcrystals.com\/images\/Tumbled-Hematite-Brazil---Tumbled-Stones-01.jpg and this red powder is also iron (III) oxide, Fe2O3, aka hematite: https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/3\/37\/Iron_oxide_red_y.jpg The only difference is whether it's a solid lump or ground up into a powder. The red, blue, and purple liquids in this picture have exactly the same composition: they're small particles of gold suspended in water. The size of the particles determines the color. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Colloidal_gold#\/media\/File:Gold255.jpg Or a more everyday example: the different blue and green areas in this peacock feather are chemically identical: the shape of small structures in the feathers, and how they interact with light, determines the color. https:\/\/magazine.scienceconnected.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/EOS-7D-Mark-II2015_05_246410-cc-crop-1024-576-e1441231628631.jpg The point is that color depends not just on the atomic structure of the material, not just on how those atomic orbitals interact with other nearby atoms on molecular scales, but on physical structures of the material on scales tens or hundreds of thousands of times bigger than an atom.","human_ref_B":"Yes you can. If you know the atomic structure and can calculate the energy of the electron orbitals, then you can determine what all the possible wavelength of photons emitted from the atom are. And given temperature and pressure you can also calculate the portion of photons emitted at each wavelength. Average those (just the ones in the visible spectrum) and you'll have the color of the material. Spectroscopy is the opposite of this where by measuring the wavelength of light, we can determine what atom emitted it. That's how we know what the sun and other celestial objects are made of.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8120.0,"score_ratio":4.5555555556} {"post_id":"lldo8z","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"A discussion on unphysical questions TLDR: I think we should have guidelines for answering unphysical questions. I've seen a lot of questions of the form \"if I do X unphysical thing (time travel, negative mass, FTL, etc, etc) then what would happen?\" and just as often I see some form of the answer: \"Asking what physics says happens when you violate physics is nonsensical.\" This answer is legitimate. I don't disagree. However, people come here with genuine curiosity about physics, and I think we should try to encourage and attempt to satisfy that curiosity. I think even non-physical questions deserve more engagement than just telling the poster that they don't make sense. For example a \"time travel\" question may really be about determinism, or questions about FTL can be great stepping points into teaching the Asker more about special relativity. So: I think we should update the sub's guidelines to recommend that Answerers try to go deeper into Asker's questions when they are unphysical and find out more about what the Asker is really trying to get at (in addition to explaining to them that the question is unphysical.) Complete nonsense questions or questions asked in bad faith could still be downvoted\/ignored, of course. What do you think?","c_root_id_A":"gnp5s9x","c_root_id_B":"gnplutq","created_at_utc_A":1613514755,"created_at_utc_B":1613522766,"score_A":13,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"I agree. I think that sometimes these questions aren't even unphysical, even if the answerers don't realize it. For example, the Higgs mechanism happens due to a negative mass term. The only thing I get tired of is when people ask \"Suppose I travel at the speed of light... \" but I just ignore those ones. I think a lot of deep lines of enquiry can also come out of seemingly trivial questions, because they're usually about facts everyone just accepts. I think one should at least be able to concisely explain why the assumptions in a question are bad ones.","human_ref_B":"I think the way these types of questions typically get answered is the correct way. I think posts in \/r\/AskPhysics should always start with an implicit > Given: physics, what happens if... If a question is asked that doesn't take physics as an assumption, we're immediately left with inconsistencies with any attempt at an answer. Never mind the common response from OP: \"I know it's impossible, but what if it wasn't??\" An attempt to go deeper just gets you back to square-one. For example, perpetual motion questions almost always ask \"Why won't this work??\" The answer is always \"because energy isn't conserved,\" or \"because of the 2nd law of thermo\" But that's not enough? They want a \"better\" answer that maybe gets into the details of magnetic dipole interactions? Why? Why can we break energy conservation, or the 2nd law, but dipole physics must stand? The non-physical questions always require breaking of physics, by definition. And if we truly wanted to attempt an answer, it would require rebuilding physics from the ground up. Break energy conservation, then E&M is out the window, so your attempt at a dipole answer was dead in the water to begin with. If someone wants to ask a physics question but is met with \"that's not physical, here's why...\" that's good enough. Why attempt a philosophical answer that will lead to more logical inconsistencies that won't help answer the question in the first place?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8011.0,"score_ratio":2.1538461538} {"post_id":"lldo8z","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"A discussion on unphysical questions TLDR: I think we should have guidelines for answering unphysical questions. I've seen a lot of questions of the form \"if I do X unphysical thing (time travel, negative mass, FTL, etc, etc) then what would happen?\" and just as often I see some form of the answer: \"Asking what physics says happens when you violate physics is nonsensical.\" This answer is legitimate. I don't disagree. However, people come here with genuine curiosity about physics, and I think we should try to encourage and attempt to satisfy that curiosity. I think even non-physical questions deserve more engagement than just telling the poster that they don't make sense. For example a \"time travel\" question may really be about determinism, or questions about FTL can be great stepping points into teaching the Asker more about special relativity. So: I think we should update the sub's guidelines to recommend that Answerers try to go deeper into Asker's questions when they are unphysical and find out more about what the Asker is really trying to get at (in addition to explaining to them that the question is unphysical.) Complete nonsense questions or questions asked in bad faith could still be downvoted\/ignored, of course. What do you think?","c_root_id_A":"gnp0kvg","c_root_id_B":"gnplutq","created_at_utc_A":1613512350,"created_at_utc_B":1613522766,"score_A":9,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Partial agree with a bit of disagree. There's inevitably going to be a \"let me stop you right there\" moment: it's impossible to answer a question that starts with \"if you went faster than the speed of light then...\", and accept the premise as given. However I do agree that we can use that premise as a gateway to explain *why* you can't go faster than light: it's a good time to talk about the energy needed to accelerate a massive particle toward lightspeed, for instance. For most unphysical situations, there is an explanation to be given about why it's unphysical, that goes beyond just \"that's how it works\". To go down \/u\/OpulentMerkin 's list, one can talk about *why* you can't travel faster than light, *why* you can't use quantum entanglement for communication, etc. *Why* you can't time travel, though, I'll leave to someone else, that one's a doozy. Point is I guess that we can give a *response* to questions with unphysical premises, but we can't really give an *answer* to the question they're asking, so it's inevitably going to feel a bit harsh.","human_ref_B":"I think the way these types of questions typically get answered is the correct way. I think posts in \/r\/AskPhysics should always start with an implicit > Given: physics, what happens if... If a question is asked that doesn't take physics as an assumption, we're immediately left with inconsistencies with any attempt at an answer. Never mind the common response from OP: \"I know it's impossible, but what if it wasn't??\" An attempt to go deeper just gets you back to square-one. For example, perpetual motion questions almost always ask \"Why won't this work??\" The answer is always \"because energy isn't conserved,\" or \"because of the 2nd law of thermo\" But that's not enough? They want a \"better\" answer that maybe gets into the details of magnetic dipole interactions? Why? Why can we break energy conservation, or the 2nd law, but dipole physics must stand? The non-physical questions always require breaking of physics, by definition. And if we truly wanted to attempt an answer, it would require rebuilding physics from the ground up. Break energy conservation, then E&M is out the window, so your attempt at a dipole answer was dead in the water to begin with. If someone wants to ask a physics question but is met with \"that's not physical, here's why...\" that's good enough. Why attempt a philosophical answer that will lead to more logical inconsistencies that won't help answer the question in the first place?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10416.0,"score_ratio":3.1111111111} {"post_id":"lldo8z","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"A discussion on unphysical questions TLDR: I think we should have guidelines for answering unphysical questions. I've seen a lot of questions of the form \"if I do X unphysical thing (time travel, negative mass, FTL, etc, etc) then what would happen?\" and just as often I see some form of the answer: \"Asking what physics says happens when you violate physics is nonsensical.\" This answer is legitimate. I don't disagree. However, people come here with genuine curiosity about physics, and I think we should try to encourage and attempt to satisfy that curiosity. I think even non-physical questions deserve more engagement than just telling the poster that they don't make sense. For example a \"time travel\" question may really be about determinism, or questions about FTL can be great stepping points into teaching the Asker more about special relativity. So: I think we should update the sub's guidelines to recommend that Answerers try to go deeper into Asker's questions when they are unphysical and find out more about what the Asker is really trying to get at (in addition to explaining to them that the question is unphysical.) Complete nonsense questions or questions asked in bad faith could still be downvoted\/ignored, of course. What do you think?","c_root_id_A":"gnoxy11","c_root_id_B":"gnplutq","created_at_utc_A":1613511189,"created_at_utc_B":1613522766,"score_A":8,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"imo teaching physics includes teaching which kinds questions are sensible and which questions physics can answer, how to think about situations in physics and how not to. that's a valuable lesson in itself. If i am to assume \"genuine curiosity\", why would that stop at having to take a step back and maybe think about the question again. at this point when there isn't the openness to do that from the op (often the case) then what do you do.. as for the most blatantly physics breaking questions : \"one\" can't post total scifi (as in not based in rigorous physics) just because that's what an op expected to get as an answer initially.","human_ref_B":"I think the way these types of questions typically get answered is the correct way. I think posts in \/r\/AskPhysics should always start with an implicit > Given: physics, what happens if... If a question is asked that doesn't take physics as an assumption, we're immediately left with inconsistencies with any attempt at an answer. Never mind the common response from OP: \"I know it's impossible, but what if it wasn't??\" An attempt to go deeper just gets you back to square-one. For example, perpetual motion questions almost always ask \"Why won't this work??\" The answer is always \"because energy isn't conserved,\" or \"because of the 2nd law of thermo\" But that's not enough? They want a \"better\" answer that maybe gets into the details of magnetic dipole interactions? Why? Why can we break energy conservation, or the 2nd law, but dipole physics must stand? The non-physical questions always require breaking of physics, by definition. And if we truly wanted to attempt an answer, it would require rebuilding physics from the ground up. Break energy conservation, then E&M is out the window, so your attempt at a dipole answer was dead in the water to begin with. If someone wants to ask a physics question but is met with \"that's not physical, here's why...\" that's good enough. Why attempt a philosophical answer that will lead to more logical inconsistencies that won't help answer the question in the first place?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11577.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"lldo8z","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"A discussion on unphysical questions TLDR: I think we should have guidelines for answering unphysical questions. I've seen a lot of questions of the form \"if I do X unphysical thing (time travel, negative mass, FTL, etc, etc) then what would happen?\" and just as often I see some form of the answer: \"Asking what physics says happens when you violate physics is nonsensical.\" This answer is legitimate. I don't disagree. However, people come here with genuine curiosity about physics, and I think we should try to encourage and attempt to satisfy that curiosity. I think even non-physical questions deserve more engagement than just telling the poster that they don't make sense. For example a \"time travel\" question may really be about determinism, or questions about FTL can be great stepping points into teaching the Asker more about special relativity. So: I think we should update the sub's guidelines to recommend that Answerers try to go deeper into Asker's questions when they are unphysical and find out more about what the Asker is really trying to get at (in addition to explaining to them that the question is unphysical.) Complete nonsense questions or questions asked in bad faith could still be downvoted\/ignored, of course. What do you think?","c_root_id_A":"gnp0kvg","c_root_id_B":"gnp5s9x","created_at_utc_A":1613512350,"created_at_utc_B":1613514755,"score_A":9,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Partial agree with a bit of disagree. There's inevitably going to be a \"let me stop you right there\" moment: it's impossible to answer a question that starts with \"if you went faster than the speed of light then...\", and accept the premise as given. However I do agree that we can use that premise as a gateway to explain *why* you can't go faster than light: it's a good time to talk about the energy needed to accelerate a massive particle toward lightspeed, for instance. For most unphysical situations, there is an explanation to be given about why it's unphysical, that goes beyond just \"that's how it works\". To go down \/u\/OpulentMerkin 's list, one can talk about *why* you can't travel faster than light, *why* you can't use quantum entanglement for communication, etc. *Why* you can't time travel, though, I'll leave to someone else, that one's a doozy. Point is I guess that we can give a *response* to questions with unphysical premises, but we can't really give an *answer* to the question they're asking, so it's inevitably going to feel a bit harsh.","human_ref_B":"I agree. I think that sometimes these questions aren't even unphysical, even if the answerers don't realize it. For example, the Higgs mechanism happens due to a negative mass term. The only thing I get tired of is when people ask \"Suppose I travel at the speed of light... \" but I just ignore those ones. I think a lot of deep lines of enquiry can also come out of seemingly trivial questions, because they're usually about facts everyone just accepts. I think one should at least be able to concisely explain why the assumptions in a question are bad ones.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2405.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444} {"post_id":"lldo8z","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"A discussion on unphysical questions TLDR: I think we should have guidelines for answering unphysical questions. I've seen a lot of questions of the form \"if I do X unphysical thing (time travel, negative mass, FTL, etc, etc) then what would happen?\" and just as often I see some form of the answer: \"Asking what physics says happens when you violate physics is nonsensical.\" This answer is legitimate. I don't disagree. However, people come here with genuine curiosity about physics, and I think we should try to encourage and attempt to satisfy that curiosity. I think even non-physical questions deserve more engagement than just telling the poster that they don't make sense. For example a \"time travel\" question may really be about determinism, or questions about FTL can be great stepping points into teaching the Asker more about special relativity. So: I think we should update the sub's guidelines to recommend that Answerers try to go deeper into Asker's questions when they are unphysical and find out more about what the Asker is really trying to get at (in addition to explaining to them that the question is unphysical.) Complete nonsense questions or questions asked in bad faith could still be downvoted\/ignored, of course. What do you think?","c_root_id_A":"gnoxy11","c_root_id_B":"gnp5s9x","created_at_utc_A":1613511189,"created_at_utc_B":1613514755,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"imo teaching physics includes teaching which kinds questions are sensible and which questions physics can answer, how to think about situations in physics and how not to. that's a valuable lesson in itself. If i am to assume \"genuine curiosity\", why would that stop at having to take a step back and maybe think about the question again. at this point when there isn't the openness to do that from the op (often the case) then what do you do.. as for the most blatantly physics breaking questions : \"one\" can't post total scifi (as in not based in rigorous physics) just because that's what an op expected to get as an answer initially.","human_ref_B":"I agree. I think that sometimes these questions aren't even unphysical, even if the answerers don't realize it. For example, the Higgs mechanism happens due to a negative mass term. The only thing I get tired of is when people ask \"Suppose I travel at the speed of light... \" but I just ignore those ones. I think a lot of deep lines of enquiry can also come out of seemingly trivial questions, because they're usually about facts everyone just accepts. I think one should at least be able to concisely explain why the assumptions in a question are bad ones.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3566.0,"score_ratio":1.625} {"post_id":"lldo8z","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"A discussion on unphysical questions TLDR: I think we should have guidelines for answering unphysical questions. I've seen a lot of questions of the form \"if I do X unphysical thing (time travel, negative mass, FTL, etc, etc) then what would happen?\" and just as often I see some form of the answer: \"Asking what physics says happens when you violate physics is nonsensical.\" This answer is legitimate. I don't disagree. However, people come here with genuine curiosity about physics, and I think we should try to encourage and attempt to satisfy that curiosity. I think even non-physical questions deserve more engagement than just telling the poster that they don't make sense. For example a \"time travel\" question may really be about determinism, or questions about FTL can be great stepping points into teaching the Asker more about special relativity. So: I think we should update the sub's guidelines to recommend that Answerers try to go deeper into Asker's questions when they are unphysical and find out more about what the Asker is really trying to get at (in addition to explaining to them that the question is unphysical.) Complete nonsense questions or questions asked in bad faith could still be downvoted\/ignored, of course. What do you think?","c_root_id_A":"gnoxy11","c_root_id_B":"gnp0kvg","created_at_utc_A":1613511189,"created_at_utc_B":1613512350,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"imo teaching physics includes teaching which kinds questions are sensible and which questions physics can answer, how to think about situations in physics and how not to. that's a valuable lesson in itself. If i am to assume \"genuine curiosity\", why would that stop at having to take a step back and maybe think about the question again. at this point when there isn't the openness to do that from the op (often the case) then what do you do.. as for the most blatantly physics breaking questions : \"one\" can't post total scifi (as in not based in rigorous physics) just because that's what an op expected to get as an answer initially.","human_ref_B":"Partial agree with a bit of disagree. There's inevitably going to be a \"let me stop you right there\" moment: it's impossible to answer a question that starts with \"if you went faster than the speed of light then...\", and accept the premise as given. However I do agree that we can use that premise as a gateway to explain *why* you can't go faster than light: it's a good time to talk about the energy needed to accelerate a massive particle toward lightspeed, for instance. For most unphysical situations, there is an explanation to be given about why it's unphysical, that goes beyond just \"that's how it works\". To go down \/u\/OpulentMerkin 's list, one can talk about *why* you can't travel faster than light, *why* you can't use quantum entanglement for communication, etc. *Why* you can't time travel, though, I'll leave to someone else, that one's a doozy. Point is I guess that we can give a *response* to questions with unphysical premises, but we can't really give an *answer* to the question they're asking, so it's inevitably going to feel a bit harsh.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1161.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"iuxq79","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"As a senior undergrad majoring in physics, has anyone else felt that analytical mechanics is harder than quantum mechanics? I\u2019m understanding quantum just fine, but analytical is kicking my ass.","c_root_id_A":"g5o5wlo","c_root_id_B":"g5oa9kq","created_at_utc_A":1600402388,"created_at_utc_B":1600405523,"score_A":13,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"I'm taking analytical mechanics and I am questioning my sanity on a daily basis.","human_ref_B":"Absolutely. Quantum may be unintuitive, but it has straight forward rules. Classical mechanics is all over the place with special cases and exceptions and formalism that appears out of nowhere.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3135.0,"score_ratio":1.5384615385} {"post_id":"hmo3zn","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Is potential energy just a math trick to make conservation of energy true, or is it actual energy? I can\u2019t really word what I am trying to ask very well. You know how kinetic energy is observable and \u201creal\u201d, is potential energy kinda like that? That\u2019s what I am trying to say","c_root_id_A":"fx6du3x","c_root_id_B":"fx6d45t","created_at_utc_A":1594098736,"created_at_utc_B":1594098184,"score_A":155,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":"Kinetic energy isn't observable\/real either, velocity is. All energies are really just mathematical tricks because we found a quantity that is conserved.","human_ref_B":"What's the difference? As far as we can tell, it accurately describes how the universe works. So it must be \"real\" in some sense. Is it \"real\" energy or is it just a \"real\" math trick? Either way, it works.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":552.0,"score_ratio":2.2794117647} {"post_id":"hmo3zn","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Is potential energy just a math trick to make conservation of energy true, or is it actual energy? I can\u2019t really word what I am trying to ask very well. You know how kinetic energy is observable and \u201creal\u201d, is potential energy kinda like that? That\u2019s what I am trying to say","c_root_id_A":"fx6prcu","c_root_id_B":"fx6q2xj","created_at_utc_A":1594109413,"created_at_utc_B":1594109736,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"We don't know. The theory works REALLY well so we use it. If some day it turns out that the numbers stop to add up we'll use a different theory. This one is just the best match.","human_ref_B":"At the end of the day this comes down to interpretation. Does it matter? It is mathematically modeled and accurate and there is no difference in treating it like one or the other. In a very technical sense, sure it\u2019s a \u201cmathematical trick\u201d. It doesn\u2019t really matter what you classify it as.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":323.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"hmo3zn","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Is potential energy just a math trick to make conservation of energy true, or is it actual energy? I can\u2019t really word what I am trying to ask very well. You know how kinetic energy is observable and \u201creal\u201d, is potential energy kinda like that? That\u2019s what I am trying to say","c_root_id_A":"fx7hebw","c_root_id_B":"fx6prcu","created_at_utc_A":1594131971,"created_at_utc_B":1594109413,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It's all relative. A rock at the top of a hill isn't fizzing with extra energy or such, but the _potential_ to produce kinetic energy later. For example, if it rolls to the bottom of the hill that potential will be transformed into kinetic energy we can observe. Another way to think of it is pushing that rock UP the hill... You are expending _kinetic_ energy and in a tangible sense you are therefore increasing the rock's _potential_ energy. You can perceive the potential energy by observing the distance you raised the rock and knowing its mass and the local acceleration due to gravity. **Thus potential energy is about the system, not just the rock in isolation.** Observing the rock in isolation tells you nothing about its potential energy. So potential energy is real, but is relative to the framework it exists within.","human_ref_B":"We don't know. The theory works REALLY well so we use it. If some day it turns out that the numbers stop to add up we'll use a different theory. This one is just the best match.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22558.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"rk6xrx","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What is electricity exactly? 1) Yes I'm stupid 2) I know it's energy, dk what it means(potential or something?) 3) Please help :( Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"hp8hk6a","c_root_id_B":"hp8hvcm","created_at_utc_A":1639960242,"created_at_utc_B":1639960386,"score_A":12,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"I tried to answer but gave up. Electricity at its most basic is a flow of charge from one place to another. An electrically charged object (be it a particle, an electron, plasma etc) will generate an electric field. Place another charged particle inside this field and a force will act upon it, causing it to move. Just before a lightning strike happens, there is a huge electric field (analogous to a magnetic field) between the clouds and the ground. This electric field grows as more charge accumulates in the clouds and on the ground. Eventually, this field will become so strong that it will release all the pent-up energy as a lightning strike, and the force of electromagnetism will be sent from areas of negative charge to positive charge. What happens during the lightning strike is that enough air particles are affected by the electric field, which causes them to generate a magnetic field. In a lightning strike, the magnetic field is generated spontaneously and very briefly the electromagnetic force is carried by both fields working in tandem. For a more conventional example, let's visualise a metal wire and a battery or a cell, call this a circuit. A cell is an inverted version of how the sky and earth work in a lightning strike - one side of the cell is positively charged and the other is negatively charged. This means that there is an electric field around a cell at all times. A battery is a stack of cells. If you attach the wire to both ends of the battery the electric field instantaneously extends to follow the wire, and the electric field interacts with the electrons of the metal(s) that make up the wire to generate a magnetic field to work alongside the electric field. The electromagnetic force travels along the wire from the area of high negative charge to the area of higher positive charge. In a circuit there are components with a property called resistance. Resistance determines how much potential difference there is across the component. Potential difference is also known as voltage drop - the energy that is released. Current is the amount of charge that travel along the wire per second - more electrons means a greater force. After this point the physical explanations get harder to define, but that's the basics on how I understand electricity. There is a wonderful book called Electromagnetic Fields and Waves by Paul Lorrain if you want to get into the msthsy side of it.","human_ref_B":"\"Electricity\" isn't a specifically defined word in physics. It's used in everyday English to refer to a variety of different things that physics does have words for, like electric power, electric current, electrical potential, electric fields, etc. Each of those concepts does have a specific meaning in physics, but \"electricity\" is just a kind of catch all term for all of them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":144.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"rk6xrx","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What is electricity exactly? 1) Yes I'm stupid 2) I know it's energy, dk what it means(potential or something?) 3) Please help :( Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"hp8xw9b","c_root_id_B":"hp8sg6f","created_at_utc_A":1639968196,"created_at_utc_B":1639965547,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Fun fact. An electrical circuit can be solved with both circuit theory (v=I\/r, etc) or electromagnetic wave theory. This makes me wonder what we really know about electricity. Is the math just a useful man made construct describing electricity, and if so, what does the full explanation look like?","human_ref_B":"Matter, the stuff that surrounds you, that you stub your toe on, the stuff that you breath, the stuff that you are composed of, is made of tiny particles of electricity. These particles come it two types, let's say male and female, or yin and yang, or positive and negative. These particles of opposite type really really dig each other, and really really want to get as close as possible to each other. Mostly the world is made up of happy marriages male-female bonds, and exhibit no electrical properties; the yin and yang cancel each other out. But sometimes, like with thunder storms or power stations, the male particles are pulled away from the female, and it is the force of attraction between the estranged particles, as they find their way home, that can produce useful energy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2649.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"qk9nam","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is Planck length the smallest length measurable by us humans or by anyone in the entire universe?","c_root_id_A":"hiw6tqm","c_root_id_B":"hivbbum","created_at_utc_A":1635780790,"created_at_utc_B":1635763219,"score_A":25,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"If you try to resolve physics on a smaller and smaller scale, you need to probe it at a smaller and smaller wavelength. However, smaller wavelength means larger energy. For length scales at around the size of the Planck length, the energy needed is such that a black hole will form with a similar size as the Planck length, effectively hiding whatever it is you were trying to measure, so the measurement failed. So the issue has to do with black holes. This issue is not unique to humans, it would occur for any process in the universe. The Planck length is also an order-of-magnitude estimate than an exact length scale beyond which measurements are impossible.","human_ref_B":"The Planck units are just \"natural units\" that can be described in terms of natural constants (Gravitational constant, Planck constant, speed of light) for time, mass, length and energy. The Planck length is also about the size of a black hole where quantum and gravitational effects have the same strength and some claim it's the shortest length measurable since particle collisions reaching energies necessary to probe that length would lead to creation of (micro)black holes. In practice, to even have sufficient energy to get in the order of magnitude of the Planck length you would need colliders that are 10,000 light years long.... so... hardly practical, at this moment. There are concerns that such high energies would also destroy the \"local universe\" but transitioning our current vacuum to a vacuum with lower energy. I say \"local universe\" because the \"explosion\" would move radially at the speed of light, but after some distance things move away faster than the speed of light due to the expansion of spacetime.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17571.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"jl0e62","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"If in a liquid, molecules are very close together, and for gas they are far apart, what do we get beyond the critical temperature where both phases are indistinguishable? Is it some intermediate distance? Are the properties gaseous or how does that work?","c_root_id_A":"gam9hpu","c_root_id_B":"gam89ky","created_at_utc_A":1604078018,"created_at_utc_B":1604077413,"score_A":90,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"The supercritical state is less well understood than most sources would have you believe, but it is my field of study. The distance between particles isn't an unambiguous term. The cube root of the density divided by the number of molecules gives one measure, and in the supercritical state this property varies continuously. However, even beyond the critical point, there are is a semblance of distinction between \"liquid-like\" and \"gas-like\" states. These are called the Widom lines, which are different depending on which property you're looking at. Check out this database of experimental fluid properties, pick your favourite fluid (let's take argon as an example), and enter a pressure above the critical pressure (which is 5 MPa for argon), and look at the density across that isobar. You'll see that the density sharply drops, but doesn't quite hit a discontinuity like it would in the liquid-gas phase transition. Many other properties like heat capacity and viscosity experience similar \"near critical anomalies\". However these anomalies only persist near the critical point - Widom lines are near critical phenomena only. In the deeper supercritical state, the properties are fuzzier and vary more smoothly. However there is one useful distinction to make, which is in particle dynamics: at lower temperatures the particles tend to mostly vibrate but occasionally diffuse (jump) before vibrating again. The jumps are somewhat rare, but frequent enough to let the liquid flow. At high temperatures, particles don't vibrate at all, they just \"meander\", for a lack of a better word, around. They bump off each other, but never really get stuck in \"cages\" like particles in solids and liquids do. The points on the phase diagram at which this happens are called the Frenkel line. It happens at the boiling line too, it's just very discontinuous, whereas the Frenkel line is smooth. Most properties evolve differently on either side of the Frenkel line.","human_ref_B":"Below the critical temperature, as you very the pressure, there is a sudden boiling point where go from typically being very close together to typically being very far apart. As you approach the critical temperature the size of this jump in the mean separation gets smaller until it goes to 0 at Tc. Above the critical temperature there is no jump in the mean separation and you just go smoothly from particles being very close together to being very far apart as the pressure decreases.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":605.0,"score_ratio":8.1818181818} {"post_id":"fy7kdl","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"I am a Physics graduate, semester got canceled So looking for ways to spend the next 6 months in a productive way Dear Physics people, As I said, I finished my master's in physics from India. I applied for my second master's in astrophysics in Germany. But as my semester got canceled, I have to wait 6 more months to join the next semester. I tried learning python on my own and my self-study on General relativity is not going efficiently as I planned and it feels like I am wasting time. Due to the corona pandemic, no research institutes are offering internships. Can someone suggest any useful way that I can spend 6 months in my home which will help me expand my knowledge like citizen science projects or some other possibilities which I haven't thought about? Although I don't have good expertise in these areas, I am interested to learn about astrophysics, fluid mechanics and statistical physics.","c_root_id_A":"fmyppjp","c_root_id_B":"fmyvux7","created_at_utc_A":1586492191,"created_at_utc_B":1586497353,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"What subjects would you have studied when you first arrived? See if you can\u2019t get some syllabi for that material.","human_ref_B":"You cannot be effective in high-level physics without at least a working knowledge of coding. Python is the gold standard, but matlab is often requested as well, so I'd focus on that. Give yourself a task to do (model lissajous figures, model a spacetime layout, something) and keep learning until you can finish that project, then do another. Stack Exchange is your friend.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5162.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"fy7kdl","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"I am a Physics graduate, semester got canceled So looking for ways to spend the next 6 months in a productive way Dear Physics people, As I said, I finished my master's in physics from India. I applied for my second master's in astrophysics in Germany. But as my semester got canceled, I have to wait 6 more months to join the next semester. I tried learning python on my own and my self-study on General relativity is not going efficiently as I planned and it feels like I am wasting time. Due to the corona pandemic, no research institutes are offering internships. Can someone suggest any useful way that I can spend 6 months in my home which will help me expand my knowledge like citizen science projects or some other possibilities which I haven't thought about? Although I don't have good expertise in these areas, I am interested to learn about astrophysics, fluid mechanics and statistical physics.","c_root_id_A":"fmz1fz2","c_root_id_B":"fmyppjp","created_at_utc_A":1586502818,"created_at_utc_B":1586492191,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Read some philosophy of science! Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend. You'll be a Doctor of Philosophy after all, and these really give interesting perspectives to what you're doing.","human_ref_B":"What subjects would you have studied when you first arrived? See if you can\u2019t get some syllabi for that material.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10627.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"fy7kdl","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"I am a Physics graduate, semester got canceled So looking for ways to spend the next 6 months in a productive way Dear Physics people, As I said, I finished my master's in physics from India. I applied for my second master's in astrophysics in Germany. But as my semester got canceled, I have to wait 6 more months to join the next semester. I tried learning python on my own and my self-study on General relativity is not going efficiently as I planned and it feels like I am wasting time. Due to the corona pandemic, no research institutes are offering internships. Can someone suggest any useful way that I can spend 6 months in my home which will help me expand my knowledge like citizen science projects or some other possibilities which I haven't thought about? Although I don't have good expertise in these areas, I am interested to learn about astrophysics, fluid mechanics and statistical physics.","c_root_id_A":"fmz012s","c_root_id_B":"fmz1fz2","created_at_utc_A":1586501377,"created_at_utc_B":1586502818,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Dang I was actually gonna suggest learning python. You didn't ask for this response, but you could always try learning a language or picking up an instrument","human_ref_B":"Read some philosophy of science! Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend. You'll be a Doctor of Philosophy after all, and these really give interesting perspectives to what you're doing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1441.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"rwovfm","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Why doesnt James Webb stay motionless at the lagrange point? Does it need to orbit the point itself? Maybe a dumb question I understand that the lagrange point itself changes position while the earth travels around the sun But why does JAmes Webb needs to orbit the lagrange point itself? Couldnt it just stay motionless relatively to the point?","c_root_id_A":"hrd7r44","c_root_id_B":"hrdr7ve","created_at_utc_A":1641398133,"created_at_utc_B":1641405255,"score_A":17,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Ok, L2 is not stable so you would need to spend energy to make corrections all the time. But isnt this also true to the orbit motion around the point? Wont u need to constantly spend energy to stay at the right orbit tragetory around L2?","human_ref_B":"There are several advantages: \\- L2 is partially eclipsed by earth, the halo orbit is not, so solar panels get more energy \\- The orbit is sun-synchronous, so it isn't ever eclipsed \\- The orbit is quasi-stable, with the complex path balancing out mostly","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7122.0,"score_ratio":1.1764705882} {"post_id":"rwovfm","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Why doesnt James Webb stay motionless at the lagrange point? Does it need to orbit the point itself? Maybe a dumb question I understand that the lagrange point itself changes position while the earth travels around the sun But why does JAmes Webb needs to orbit the lagrange point itself? Couldnt it just stay motionless relatively to the point?","c_root_id_A":"hrdr7ve","c_root_id_B":"hrdjz7e","created_at_utc_A":1641405255,"created_at_utc_B":1641402670,"score_A":20,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"There are several advantages: \\- L2 is partially eclipsed by earth, the halo orbit is not, so solar panels get more energy \\- The orbit is sun-synchronous, so it isn't ever eclipsed \\- The orbit is quasi-stable, with the complex path balancing out mostly","human_ref_B":"I see other answer correctly pointing out that L2 is perturbatively unstable, but so is the halo orbit and the James Webb will still have to undergo course correction through the duration of its lifetime. We could very easily keep the James Webb parked at L2 but this then precludes the use of that point for other missions and Lagrange points as stationary points in the gravitational field are places where debris also likes to park itself, which isn't good for scientific instruments. A final consideration is line-of-sight loss and hence signal loss between Earth and the James Webb when the telescope is eclipsed by the Moon. The James Webb has what's called a \"halo orbit\" where the telescope orbits around the L2 Lagrange point and maintains constant line of site with Earth. Here's an animation of the motion: James Webb Halo Orbit","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2585.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"ge90rs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do you guys remember all proofs and derivations? I try to, but sometimes I forget them, and I was wondering if you guys who are in grad school or the ones who are already doing research remember all of the derivations (not vital stuff like Maxwell's equations or why light moves at the speed of light in vacuum) and proofs. I can build them, but it takes time, and sometimes I get lost","c_root_id_A":"fpm792e","c_root_id_B":"fpm6wcs","created_at_utc_A":1588726992,"created_at_utc_B":1588726786,"score_A":26,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Some yes. Product and Quotient rules are easy; I\u2019ve taught calculus enough that I just know them. Others I have enough skill to be able to get through as I go even if the proof is slightly different each time. Others I will either work out before I need it or refer to my notes as I teach. The skill is having the tools to be able to do those proofs and understand why each step leads to the next and why that step is needed in the overall strategy of the proof.","human_ref_B":"Absolutely not, unless for instance a professor might've hinted as some kind of derivation being a core component of an upcoming exam (Formula sheets are made for stuffing, anyway). There's no shame in not remembering some long-winded derivation you reviewed once or twice in lectures; that's not really how you retain the information effectively. It'd only be reasonable to expect someone to have a particularly complicated derivation memorized if they (For whatever reason) were constantly having to do it, maybe in tutoring.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":206.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444} {"post_id":"ge90rs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do you guys remember all proofs and derivations? I try to, but sometimes I forget them, and I was wondering if you guys who are in grad school or the ones who are already doing research remember all of the derivations (not vital stuff like Maxwell's equations or why light moves at the speed of light in vacuum) and proofs. I can build them, but it takes time, and sometimes I get lost","c_root_id_A":"fpm7gvf","c_root_id_B":"fpm7yqm","created_at_utc_A":1588727120,"created_at_utc_B":1588727412,"score_A":3,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I remember the derivations for some of the kinematic equations and for the electromagnetic wave equation. That's it. There is virtually no benefit to memorizing derivations. I don't think I've ever even learned a single proof.","human_ref_B":"I'm actually going to be an outlier, in that it's a partial yes for most for me. I definitely don't remember every step, but for most of it I remember where you start, and the approach used. From there you can just run through the steps.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":292.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333} {"post_id":"ge90rs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do you guys remember all proofs and derivations? I try to, but sometimes I forget them, and I was wondering if you guys who are in grad school or the ones who are already doing research remember all of the derivations (not vital stuff like Maxwell's equations or why light moves at the speed of light in vacuum) and proofs. I can build them, but it takes time, and sometimes I get lost","c_root_id_A":"fpm7gvf","c_root_id_B":"fpmgpm6","created_at_utc_A":1588727120,"created_at_utc_B":1588732697,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I remember the derivations for some of the kinematic equations and for the electromagnetic wave equation. That's it. There is virtually no benefit to memorizing derivations. I don't think I've ever even learned a single proof.","human_ref_B":"Not in detail, but I'd say I generally remember the approach so that I could reproduce almost all proofs\/derivations. Now that I've been doing physics for 10 years I've seen and used certain approaches\/methods often enough that they're pretty stuck in my mind. It probably helps that I'm a theorist so knowing all these methods is pretty essential for writing papers with new results in them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5577.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"ge90rs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do you guys remember all proofs and derivations? I try to, but sometimes I forget them, and I was wondering if you guys who are in grad school or the ones who are already doing research remember all of the derivations (not vital stuff like Maxwell's equations or why light moves at the speed of light in vacuum) and proofs. I can build them, but it takes time, and sometimes I get lost","c_root_id_A":"fpmgpm6","c_root_id_B":"fpmciv8","created_at_utc_A":1588732697,"created_at_utc_B":1588730111,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Not in detail, but I'd say I generally remember the approach so that I could reproduce almost all proofs\/derivations. Now that I've been doing physics for 10 years I've seen and used certain approaches\/methods often enough that they're pretty stuck in my mind. It probably helps that I'm a theorist so knowing all these methods is pretty essential for writing papers with new results in them.","human_ref_B":"I don't recall them and nobody does. But the better you get at this, the more you are able to construct the proofs with ease. When I first took Real Analysis I struggled mightily. I now tutor it sometimes and can produce about half the proofs in Baby Rudin (chapters 1 through 7, anyway) with ease, and the other half with struggle. I've just learned how to think about it, and I've memorized a small handful of things.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2586.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"ge90rs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do you guys remember all proofs and derivations? I try to, but sometimes I forget them, and I was wondering if you guys who are in grad school or the ones who are already doing research remember all of the derivations (not vital stuff like Maxwell's equations or why light moves at the speed of light in vacuum) and proofs. I can build them, but it takes time, and sometimes I get lost","c_root_id_A":"fpmciv8","c_root_id_B":"fpnqut2","created_at_utc_A":1588730111,"created_at_utc_B":1588770577,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don't recall them and nobody does. But the better you get at this, the more you are able to construct the proofs with ease. When I first took Real Analysis I struggled mightily. I now tutor it sometimes and can produce about half the proofs in Baby Rudin (chapters 1 through 7, anyway) with ease, and the other half with struggle. I've just learned how to think about it, and I've memorized a small handful of things.","human_ref_B":"It's quite pointless to try and remember them all. I know from experience, because that's the system I have, to actually pass an exam. Every exam is divided into 2 - solving problems, and deriving theory. Both of them involve the whole material for the exam (the whole textbook or textbooks). First we deal with the solving problems part. It includes 5 problems, and if you have more than 50%, you get to do the theory section. If not, you've failed. The theory section includes 3 questions (usually they cover 3 chapters). If you don't know one of them, you fail the whole thing. The thing is, we have to know the whole derivation, even though the teachers have to look some ot them up. It's really frustrating. My method of memorizing them is to actually remember the starting conditions, and the mathematical approach I need to derive it. Sometimes I even write down the approach with words instead of formulas - for example, a while ago I had to deal with a complicated system of 4 equations, so I wrote something in the form of: from the first equation I'll derive one specific coefficient and then use it in the second, then I'll divide the third equation with the forth, and so on (you get my point). My method is good for a short period of time, like when you have to pass an exam. But the thing is, even if you do this, you won't remember the derivations, unless you write them time after time after time. In my opinion, we shouldn't even try to remember them. The point is to understand what's behind them, and use some of the ideas and tricks in problems (both textbook and real life problems). That's why I'm so frustrated that I must memorize something, which takes time and a lot of effort, only to forget it a few months later. At least I know which book and notebook to open when I actually need the information.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":40466.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ge90rs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do you guys remember all proofs and derivations? I try to, but sometimes I forget them, and I was wondering if you guys who are in grad school or the ones who are already doing research remember all of the derivations (not vital stuff like Maxwell's equations or why light moves at the speed of light in vacuum) and proofs. I can build them, but it takes time, and sometimes I get lost","c_root_id_A":"fpnqut2","c_root_id_B":"fpmzy7n","created_at_utc_A":1588770577,"created_at_utc_B":1588746188,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It's quite pointless to try and remember them all. I know from experience, because that's the system I have, to actually pass an exam. Every exam is divided into 2 - solving problems, and deriving theory. Both of them involve the whole material for the exam (the whole textbook or textbooks). First we deal with the solving problems part. It includes 5 problems, and if you have more than 50%, you get to do the theory section. If not, you've failed. The theory section includes 3 questions (usually they cover 3 chapters). If you don't know one of them, you fail the whole thing. The thing is, we have to know the whole derivation, even though the teachers have to look some ot them up. It's really frustrating. My method of memorizing them is to actually remember the starting conditions, and the mathematical approach I need to derive it. Sometimes I even write down the approach with words instead of formulas - for example, a while ago I had to deal with a complicated system of 4 equations, so I wrote something in the form of: from the first equation I'll derive one specific coefficient and then use it in the second, then I'll divide the third equation with the forth, and so on (you get my point). My method is good for a short period of time, like when you have to pass an exam. But the thing is, even if you do this, you won't remember the derivations, unless you write them time after time after time. In my opinion, we shouldn't even try to remember them. The point is to understand what's behind them, and use some of the ideas and tricks in problems (both textbook and real life problems). That's why I'm so frustrated that I must memorize something, which takes time and a lot of effort, only to forget it a few months later. At least I know which book and notebook to open when I actually need the information.","human_ref_B":"I feel like I'm going to give a different opinion from everyone else. I very rarely remember formulas and laws beyond the most fundamental ones. I memorize Maxwell's four laws, but not the dispersion relations of water, or the electric field outside a conductor, or the boundary conditions of the fields. However, I try to remember the methods to get the most important results and derive them on the spot when needed. Knowing the derivations is a good way to avoid memorizing to much stuff, and also gives you the methods that you use to solve many problems. It also helps you check for every problem that you stay within the domain where the assumptions needed for your results hold. The proofs are not important by themselves, but they give you a toolbox useful to solve actual problems, help you remember important results and their validity domain. They are also useful when you leave the validity domain of your laws. For EM wave propagation, in a vacuum, you get d'Alembert's propagation equation, however, in a plasma, there are electric currents? How is the wave equation modified? Well just use the same derivation you did for d'Alembert's equation, and you find a diffusion equation, that tells you waves become evanescent waves instead.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24389.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ge90rs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do you guys remember all proofs and derivations? I try to, but sometimes I forget them, and I was wondering if you guys who are in grad school or the ones who are already doing research remember all of the derivations (not vital stuff like Maxwell's equations or why light moves at the speed of light in vacuum) and proofs. I can build them, but it takes time, and sometimes I get lost","c_root_id_A":"fpnqut2","c_root_id_B":"fpnik3l","created_at_utc_A":1588770577,"created_at_utc_B":1588764061,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It's quite pointless to try and remember them all. I know from experience, because that's the system I have, to actually pass an exam. Every exam is divided into 2 - solving problems, and deriving theory. Both of them involve the whole material for the exam (the whole textbook or textbooks). First we deal with the solving problems part. It includes 5 problems, and if you have more than 50%, you get to do the theory section. If not, you've failed. The theory section includes 3 questions (usually they cover 3 chapters). If you don't know one of them, you fail the whole thing. The thing is, we have to know the whole derivation, even though the teachers have to look some ot them up. It's really frustrating. My method of memorizing them is to actually remember the starting conditions, and the mathematical approach I need to derive it. Sometimes I even write down the approach with words instead of formulas - for example, a while ago I had to deal with a complicated system of 4 equations, so I wrote something in the form of: from the first equation I'll derive one specific coefficient and then use it in the second, then I'll divide the third equation with the forth, and so on (you get my point). My method is good for a short period of time, like when you have to pass an exam. But the thing is, even if you do this, you won't remember the derivations, unless you write them time after time after time. In my opinion, we shouldn't even try to remember them. The point is to understand what's behind them, and use some of the ideas and tricks in problems (both textbook and real life problems). That's why I'm so frustrated that I must memorize something, which takes time and a lot of effort, only to forget it a few months later. At least I know which book and notebook to open when I actually need the information.","human_ref_B":"No. But for important ones, I write them up in LaTeX to teach it to myself.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6516.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ge90rs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do you guys remember all proofs and derivations? I try to, but sometimes I forget them, and I was wondering if you guys who are in grad school or the ones who are already doing research remember all of the derivations (not vital stuff like Maxwell's equations or why light moves at the speed of light in vacuum) and proofs. I can build them, but it takes time, and sometimes I get lost","c_root_id_A":"fpmciv8","c_root_id_B":"fpnuna2","created_at_utc_A":1588730111,"created_at_utc_B":1588772943,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don't recall them and nobody does. But the better you get at this, the more you are able to construct the proofs with ease. When I first took Real Analysis I struggled mightily. I now tutor it sometimes and can produce about half the proofs in Baby Rudin (chapters 1 through 7, anyway) with ease, and the other half with struggle. I've just learned how to think about it, and I've memorized a small handful of things.","human_ref_B":"I remember my Fluid Mechanics professor skipping through all of his proof slides and saying, \u201cWe could do the proofs, but everyone here wants to be engineers so you don\u2019t care about proofs. You just want to apply the formulas to problems.\u201d God, I loved that professor","labels":0,"seconds_difference":42832.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ge90rs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do you guys remember all proofs and derivations? I try to, but sometimes I forget them, and I was wondering if you guys who are in grad school or the ones who are already doing research remember all of the derivations (not vital stuff like Maxwell's equations or why light moves at the speed of light in vacuum) and proofs. I can build them, but it takes time, and sometimes I get lost","c_root_id_A":"fpnuna2","c_root_id_B":"fpmzy7n","created_at_utc_A":1588772943,"created_at_utc_B":1588746188,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I remember my Fluid Mechanics professor skipping through all of his proof slides and saying, \u201cWe could do the proofs, but everyone here wants to be engineers so you don\u2019t care about proofs. You just want to apply the formulas to problems.\u201d God, I loved that professor","human_ref_B":"I feel like I'm going to give a different opinion from everyone else. I very rarely remember formulas and laws beyond the most fundamental ones. I memorize Maxwell's four laws, but not the dispersion relations of water, or the electric field outside a conductor, or the boundary conditions of the fields. However, I try to remember the methods to get the most important results and derive them on the spot when needed. Knowing the derivations is a good way to avoid memorizing to much stuff, and also gives you the methods that you use to solve many problems. It also helps you check for every problem that you stay within the domain where the assumptions needed for your results hold. The proofs are not important by themselves, but they give you a toolbox useful to solve actual problems, help you remember important results and their validity domain. They are also useful when you leave the validity domain of your laws. For EM wave propagation, in a vacuum, you get d'Alembert's propagation equation, however, in a plasma, there are electric currents? How is the wave equation modified? Well just use the same derivation you did for d'Alembert's equation, and you find a diffusion equation, that tells you waves become evanescent waves instead.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26755.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ge90rs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do you guys remember all proofs and derivations? I try to, but sometimes I forget them, and I was wondering if you guys who are in grad school or the ones who are already doing research remember all of the derivations (not vital stuff like Maxwell's equations or why light moves at the speed of light in vacuum) and proofs. I can build them, but it takes time, and sometimes I get lost","c_root_id_A":"fpnuna2","c_root_id_B":"fpnik3l","created_at_utc_A":1588772943,"created_at_utc_B":1588764061,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I remember my Fluid Mechanics professor skipping through all of his proof slides and saying, \u201cWe could do the proofs, but everyone here wants to be engineers so you don\u2019t care about proofs. You just want to apply the formulas to problems.\u201d God, I loved that professor","human_ref_B":"No. But for important ones, I write them up in LaTeX to teach it to myself.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8882.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"gry8tf","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"If I was on a spaceship accelerating toward the speed of light at 1g (9.8 m\/s\/s), would my acceleration appear to slow down as I get closer to the speed of light from an outsider observer?","c_root_id_A":"fs1w5yi","c_root_id_B":"fs1xhko","created_at_utc_A":1590636988,"created_at_utc_B":1590637831,"score_A":15,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":"It would continually take more energy to accelerate at the same rate as you approach c","human_ref_B":"For me, this thought experiment was the best way to understand the limitation of the speed of light intuitively. Because from your spaceship\u2019s perspective, you could accelerate indefinitely (provided you had the energy). Everyone thinks you hit some roadblock or speed limit as you approach C. But, you could accelerate forever, and you would in fact be going faster every step of the way. There is actually no speed limit to how fast you could go. The difference is perspective. The outside observer sees you approaching C but never quite reaching it. But you would see the universe before you contract, reaching seemingly impossible destinations. From your spaceship\u2019s perspective, within just one year\u2019s time accelerating at 9.8 m\/s\/s you could traverse the length of the Milky Way galaxy. (Even though thousands of years would pass back on earth, and *they* would never see you go faster than C.) This is also the subject of an old book by Poul Anderson called Tao Zero where the spaceship\u2019s acceleration gets stuck and they can\u2019t stop. So they travel millions of light years outside the galaxy with no hope of ever returning to earth.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":843.0,"score_ratio":4.5333333333} {"post_id":"gry8tf","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"If I was on a spaceship accelerating toward the speed of light at 1g (9.8 m\/s\/s), would my acceleration appear to slow down as I get closer to the speed of light from an outsider observer?","c_root_id_A":"fs1txzs","c_root_id_B":"fs1xhko","created_at_utc_A":1590635593,"created_at_utc_B":1590637831,"score_A":12,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":"Yes","human_ref_B":"For me, this thought experiment was the best way to understand the limitation of the speed of light intuitively. Because from your spaceship\u2019s perspective, you could accelerate indefinitely (provided you had the energy). Everyone thinks you hit some roadblock or speed limit as you approach C. But, you could accelerate forever, and you would in fact be going faster every step of the way. There is actually no speed limit to how fast you could go. The difference is perspective. The outside observer sees you approaching C but never quite reaching it. But you would see the universe before you contract, reaching seemingly impossible destinations. From your spaceship\u2019s perspective, within just one year\u2019s time accelerating at 9.8 m\/s\/s you could traverse the length of the Milky Way galaxy. (Even though thousands of years would pass back on earth, and *they* would never see you go faster than C.) This is also the subject of an old book by Poul Anderson called Tao Zero where the spaceship\u2019s acceleration gets stuck and they can\u2019t stop. So they travel millions of light years outside the galaxy with no hope of ever returning to earth.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2238.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667} {"post_id":"gry8tf","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"If I was on a spaceship accelerating toward the speed of light at 1g (9.8 m\/s\/s), would my acceleration appear to slow down as I get closer to the speed of light from an outsider observer?","c_root_id_A":"fs1xhko","c_root_id_B":"fs1xa40","created_at_utc_A":1590637831,"created_at_utc_B":1590637698,"score_A":68,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"For me, this thought experiment was the best way to understand the limitation of the speed of light intuitively. Because from your spaceship\u2019s perspective, you could accelerate indefinitely (provided you had the energy). Everyone thinks you hit some roadblock or speed limit as you approach C. But, you could accelerate forever, and you would in fact be going faster every step of the way. There is actually no speed limit to how fast you could go. The difference is perspective. The outside observer sees you approaching C but never quite reaching it. But you would see the universe before you contract, reaching seemingly impossible destinations. From your spaceship\u2019s perspective, within just one year\u2019s time accelerating at 9.8 m\/s\/s you could traverse the length of the Milky Way galaxy. (Even though thousands of years would pass back on earth, and *they* would never see you go faster than C.) This is also the subject of an old book by Poul Anderson called Tao Zero where the spaceship\u2019s acceleration gets stuck and they can\u2019t stop. So they travel millions of light years outside the galaxy with no hope of ever returning to earth.","human_ref_B":"As seen from an outside observer your acceleration has to go down. As seen by you you can keep accelerating at 1 g forever.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":133.0,"score_ratio":13.6} {"post_id":"gry8tf","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"If I was on a spaceship accelerating toward the speed of light at 1g (9.8 m\/s\/s), would my acceleration appear to slow down as I get closer to the speed of light from an outsider observer?","c_root_id_A":"fs1txzs","c_root_id_B":"fs1w5yi","created_at_utc_A":1590635593,"created_at_utc_B":1590636988,"score_A":12,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Yes","human_ref_B":"It would continually take more energy to accelerate at the same rate as you approach c","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1395.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"wvkrzk","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How can I teach myself about black holes? Not generally but with math and physics. Textbook recommendations would be great. 26, chemistry major. I want to do something on the side, especially at home. Have only first year understanding of linear algebra and calculus. Maybe I should just not do it as I'm nearing my 30s and get on with my life?","c_root_id_A":"ilft9gl","c_root_id_B":"ilftkyc","created_at_utc_A":1661251141,"created_at_utc_B":1661251369,"score_A":39,"score_B":40,"human_ref_A":"Sean Carroll's book.","human_ref_B":"Definitely Eigenchris' video lectures on tensors and relativity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":228.0,"score_ratio":1.0256410256} {"post_id":"wvkrzk","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How can I teach myself about black holes? Not generally but with math and physics. Textbook recommendations would be great. 26, chemistry major. I want to do something on the side, especially at home. Have only first year understanding of linear algebra and calculus. Maybe I should just not do it as I'm nearing my 30s and get on with my life?","c_root_id_A":"ilg0ydb","c_root_id_B":"ilg0uyq","created_at_utc_A":1661255956,"created_at_utc_B":1661255905,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Never too late to learn. Don\u2019t make the mistake of being unteachable.","human_ref_B":"\"A First Course in General Relativity\" by Bernard Schutz is a great intro to special and general relativity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":51.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"wvkrzk","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How can I teach myself about black holes? Not generally but with math and physics. Textbook recommendations would be great. 26, chemistry major. I want to do something on the side, especially at home. Have only first year understanding of linear algebra and calculus. Maybe I should just not do it as I'm nearing my 30s and get on with my life?","c_root_id_A":"ilg0uyq","c_root_id_B":"ilgootu","created_at_utc_A":1661255905,"created_at_utc_B":1661266540,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"\"A First Course in General Relativity\" by Bernard Schutz is a great intro to special and general relativity.","human_ref_B":"Gravity by Hartle is a good undergraduate level treatment","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10635.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"wvkrzk","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How can I teach myself about black holes? Not generally but with math and physics. Textbook recommendations would be great. 26, chemistry major. I want to do something on the side, especially at home. Have only first year understanding of linear algebra and calculus. Maybe I should just not do it as I'm nearing my 30s and get on with my life?","c_root_id_A":"ilgze21","c_root_id_B":"ilg0uyq","created_at_utc_A":1661270682,"created_at_utc_B":1661255905,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I have all the books that have been recommended and they're all great but two that helped me the most are: Covariant Physics : From Classical Mechanics to General Relativity and Beyond by Moataz H. Emam and A Most Incomprehensible Thing : Notes Towards a Very Gentle Introduction to the Mathematics of Relativity by Peter Collier Peter also has a book on differential forms which you will eventually definitely want to take a look at. Good luck and have fun!","human_ref_B":"\"A First Course in General Relativity\" by Bernard Schutz is a great intro to special and general relativity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14777.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"wvkrzk","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How can I teach myself about black holes? Not generally but with math and physics. Textbook recommendations would be great. 26, chemistry major. I want to do something on the side, especially at home. Have only first year understanding of linear algebra and calculus. Maybe I should just not do it as I'm nearing my 30s and get on with my life?","c_root_id_A":"ilgr44s","c_root_id_B":"ilgze21","created_at_utc_A":1661267499,"created_at_utc_B":1661270682,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Black holes: a very short introduction. By Oxford University Press is a good primer. Actually this AVSI series is excellent for lots of topics. https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/book\/722","human_ref_B":"I have all the books that have been recommended and they're all great but two that helped me the most are: Covariant Physics : From Classical Mechanics to General Relativity and Beyond by Moataz H. Emam and A Most Incomprehensible Thing : Notes Towards a Very Gentle Introduction to the Mathematics of Relativity by Peter Collier Peter also has a book on differential forms which you will eventually definitely want to take a look at. Good luck and have fun!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3183.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"wvkrzk","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How can I teach myself about black holes? Not generally but with math and physics. Textbook recommendations would be great. 26, chemistry major. I want to do something on the side, especially at home. Have only first year understanding of linear algebra and calculus. Maybe I should just not do it as I'm nearing my 30s and get on with my life?","c_root_id_A":"ilhflyu","c_root_id_B":"ilg0uyq","created_at_utc_A":1661276826,"created_at_utc_B":1661255905,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I can think of absolutely no better recommendation than this one A General Relativity Workbook by Thomas A Moore. You are perfectly prepared for it with calculus and linear algebra, albeit perhaps a little rusty. This is really the perfect book for self-learning. Instead of reading the chapter and doing some exercises, you do exercises in the exposition of the chapter. It's a really lovely design. It starts with a refresher of special relativity and vectors and some calculus and then gently introduces you to tensor calculus in the most approachable way I've ever encountered. Then you simply apply the tensor calculus and discover GR along the way. It's just great.","human_ref_B":"\"A First Course in General Relativity\" by Bernard Schutz is a great intro to special and general relativity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20921.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"wvkrzk","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How can I teach myself about black holes? Not generally but with math and physics. Textbook recommendations would be great. 26, chemistry major. I want to do something on the side, especially at home. Have only first year understanding of linear algebra and calculus. Maybe I should just not do it as I'm nearing my 30s and get on with my life?","c_root_id_A":"ilhflyu","c_root_id_B":"ilgr44s","created_at_utc_A":1661276826,"created_at_utc_B":1661267499,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I can think of absolutely no better recommendation than this one A General Relativity Workbook by Thomas A Moore. You are perfectly prepared for it with calculus and linear algebra, albeit perhaps a little rusty. This is really the perfect book for self-learning. Instead of reading the chapter and doing some exercises, you do exercises in the exposition of the chapter. It's a really lovely design. It starts with a refresher of special relativity and vectors and some calculus and then gently introduces you to tensor calculus in the most approachable way I've ever encountered. Then you simply apply the tensor calculus and discover GR along the way. It's just great.","human_ref_B":"Black holes: a very short introduction. By Oxford University Press is a good primer. Actually this AVSI series is excellent for lots of topics. https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/book\/722","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9327.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"wvkrzk","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How can I teach myself about black holes? Not generally but with math and physics. Textbook recommendations would be great. 26, chemistry major. I want to do something on the side, especially at home. Have only first year understanding of linear algebra and calculus. Maybe I should just not do it as I'm nearing my 30s and get on with my life?","c_root_id_A":"ilhmys8","c_root_id_B":"ilg0uyq","created_at_utc_A":1661279667,"created_at_utc_B":1661255905,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"*A General Relativity Workbook* by Thomas A. More is a great way to really get into GR without which getting into black holes \"with math and physics\" is essentially impossible.","human_ref_B":"\"A First Course in General Relativity\" by Bernard Schutz is a great intro to special and general relativity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23762.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"wvkrzk","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How can I teach myself about black holes? Not generally but with math and physics. Textbook recommendations would be great. 26, chemistry major. I want to do something on the side, especially at home. Have only first year understanding of linear algebra and calculus. Maybe I should just not do it as I'm nearing my 30s and get on with my life?","c_root_id_A":"ilhmys8","c_root_id_B":"ilgr44s","created_at_utc_A":1661279667,"created_at_utc_B":1661267499,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"*A General Relativity Workbook* by Thomas A. More is a great way to really get into GR without which getting into black holes \"with math and physics\" is essentially impossible.","human_ref_B":"Black holes: a very short introduction. By Oxford University Press is a good primer. Actually this AVSI series is excellent for lots of topics. https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/book\/722","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12168.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"h9dt95","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do actual particles pop up from empty space? So i heard that the Hawking radiation is caused by particles that come into existence from the borders of the black hole and the one disappears away so there's some kind of loss of mass. Then i heard that particles do not magically come into existence from nothing they are only virtual particles, meaning they are just used as a mathematical tool. Is this true or when we say virtual particles we mean that they actually exist but have very short life span?","c_root_id_A":"fuwk5vu","c_root_id_B":"fuw1pc8","created_at_utc_A":1592231298,"created_at_utc_B":1592218107,"score_A":17,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"No. https:\/\/www.physicsforums.com\/insights\/vacuum-fluctuation-myth\/ https:\/\/www.physicsforums.com\/insights\/misconceptions-virtual-particles\/ https:\/\/www.physicsforums.com\/insights\/physics-virtual-particles\/ >Hawking radiation is caused by particles that come into existence from the borders of the black hole and the one disappears away so there's some kind of loss of mass In short this isn't accurate. This is a myth trying to motivate plastically how Hawking radiation happens, but not accurate. >Is this true or when we say virtual particles we mean that they actually exist but have very short life span? No, usually when people talk about virtual particles in these contexts they really mean something like the fields even in their ground state behaving nontrivially \/ \"taking part in physics\" (that's how I would phrase it...), without there actually being particles.","human_ref_B":"Virtual particles are a mathematical tool.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13191.0,"score_ratio":1.2142857143} {"post_id":"h9dt95","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do actual particles pop up from empty space? So i heard that the Hawking radiation is caused by particles that come into existence from the borders of the black hole and the one disappears away so there's some kind of loss of mass. Then i heard that particles do not magically come into existence from nothing they are only virtual particles, meaning they are just used as a mathematical tool. Is this true or when we say virtual particles we mean that they actually exist but have very short life span?","c_root_id_A":"fuw1vs3","c_root_id_B":"fuwk5vu","created_at_utc_A":1592218272,"created_at_utc_B":1592231298,"score_A":5,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskPhysics\/comments\/h8njtj\/i_hear_a_lot_of_conflicting_things_about_virtual https:\/\/youtu.be\/qPKj0YnKANw","human_ref_B":"No. https:\/\/www.physicsforums.com\/insights\/vacuum-fluctuation-myth\/ https:\/\/www.physicsforums.com\/insights\/misconceptions-virtual-particles\/ https:\/\/www.physicsforums.com\/insights\/physics-virtual-particles\/ >Hawking radiation is caused by particles that come into existence from the borders of the black hole and the one disappears away so there's some kind of loss of mass In short this isn't accurate. This is a myth trying to motivate plastically how Hawking radiation happens, but not accurate. >Is this true or when we say virtual particles we mean that they actually exist but have very short life span? No, usually when people talk about virtual particles in these contexts they really mean something like the fields even in their ground state behaving nontrivially \/ \"taking part in physics\" (that's how I would phrase it...), without there actually being particles.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13026.0,"score_ratio":3.4} {"post_id":"h9dt95","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do actual particles pop up from empty space? So i heard that the Hawking radiation is caused by particles that come into existence from the borders of the black hole and the one disappears away so there's some kind of loss of mass. Then i heard that particles do not magically come into existence from nothing they are only virtual particles, meaning they are just used as a mathematical tool. Is this true or when we say virtual particles we mean that they actually exist but have very short life span?","c_root_id_A":"fuwk5vu","c_root_id_B":"fuwdufr","created_at_utc_A":1592231298,"created_at_utc_B":1592227631,"score_A":17,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"No. https:\/\/www.physicsforums.com\/insights\/vacuum-fluctuation-myth\/ https:\/\/www.physicsforums.com\/insights\/misconceptions-virtual-particles\/ https:\/\/www.physicsforums.com\/insights\/physics-virtual-particles\/ >Hawking radiation is caused by particles that come into existence from the borders of the black hole and the one disappears away so there's some kind of loss of mass In short this isn't accurate. This is a myth trying to motivate plastically how Hawking radiation happens, but not accurate. >Is this true or when we say virtual particles we mean that they actually exist but have very short life span? No, usually when people talk about virtual particles in these contexts they really mean something like the fields even in their ground state behaving nontrivially \/ \"taking part in physics\" (that's how I would phrase it...), without there actually being particles.","human_ref_B":"Re direct observation of Hawking Radiation: difficult with the distances to black hole event horizons. I've had a little read of lab analogues, which are typically from about a decade ago. https:\/\/www.sciencealert.com\/scientists-have-stimulated-hawking-radiation-in-a-lab-analogue-of-a-black-hole Is there anything more definitive and less newspapery on this?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3667.0,"score_ratio":3.4} {"post_id":"h9dt95","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do actual particles pop up from empty space? So i heard that the Hawking radiation is caused by particles that come into existence from the borders of the black hole and the one disappears away so there's some kind of loss of mass. Then i heard that particles do not magically come into existence from nothing they are only virtual particles, meaning they are just used as a mathematical tool. Is this true or when we say virtual particles we mean that they actually exist but have very short life span?","c_root_id_A":"fuwk5vu","c_root_id_B":"fuwdovj","created_at_utc_A":1592231298,"created_at_utc_B":1592227533,"score_A":17,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"No. https:\/\/www.physicsforums.com\/insights\/vacuum-fluctuation-myth\/ https:\/\/www.physicsforums.com\/insights\/misconceptions-virtual-particles\/ https:\/\/www.physicsforums.com\/insights\/physics-virtual-particles\/ >Hawking radiation is caused by particles that come into existence from the borders of the black hole and the one disappears away so there's some kind of loss of mass In short this isn't accurate. This is a myth trying to motivate plastically how Hawking radiation happens, but not accurate. >Is this true or when we say virtual particles we mean that they actually exist but have very short life span? No, usually when people talk about virtual particles in these contexts they really mean something like the fields even in their ground state behaving nontrivially \/ \"taking part in physics\" (that's how I would phrase it...), without there actually being particles.","human_ref_B":"Interesting question. There's a good abstract on wiki: \"In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle. The concept of virtual particles arises in perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. A process involving virtual particles can be described by a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, in which virtual particles are represented by internal lines.[1][2] Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The longer the virtual particle exists, the closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles. They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, even classical forces\u2014such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges\u2014can be thought of as due to the exchange of many virtual photons between the charges. Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction. The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of \"real particles\". It is not. \"Real particles\" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are \"temporary\" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate.[3] \" https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Virtual_particle So it's something that can't be detected in experiments. The question is, I think, what is the definition of reality. I'd take the view that they're having an effect, so they're real.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3765.0,"score_ratio":8.5} {"post_id":"h9dt95","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Do actual particles pop up from empty space? So i heard that the Hawking radiation is caused by particles that come into existence from the borders of the black hole and the one disappears away so there's some kind of loss of mass. Then i heard that particles do not magically come into existence from nothing they are only virtual particles, meaning they are just used as a mathematical tool. Is this true or when we say virtual particles we mean that they actually exist but have very short life span?","c_root_id_A":"fuwdufr","c_root_id_B":"fuwdovj","created_at_utc_A":1592227631,"created_at_utc_B":1592227533,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Re direct observation of Hawking Radiation: difficult with the distances to black hole event horizons. I've had a little read of lab analogues, which are typically from about a decade ago. https:\/\/www.sciencealert.com\/scientists-have-stimulated-hawking-radiation-in-a-lab-analogue-of-a-black-hole Is there anything more definitive and less newspapery on this?","human_ref_B":"Interesting question. There's a good abstract on wiki: \"In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle. The concept of virtual particles arises in perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. A process involving virtual particles can be described by a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, in which virtual particles are represented by internal lines.[1][2] Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The longer the virtual particle exists, the closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles. They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, even classical forces\u2014such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges\u2014can be thought of as due to the exchange of many virtual photons between the charges. Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction. The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of \"real particles\". It is not. \"Real particles\" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are \"temporary\" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate.[3] \" https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Virtual_particle So it's something that can't be detected in experiments. The question is, I think, what is the definition of reality. I'd take the view that they're having an effect, so they're real.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":98.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"fce3bn","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"If black holes lead to an (near) infinite curve of space time, do they not actually exist in our time? In other words, rather than \u201csucking things in\u201d do black holes actually just accelerate matter into some distant part of the future?","c_root_id_A":"fja846a","c_root_id_B":"fjalotw","created_at_utc_A":1583168316,"created_at_utc_B":1583175939,"score_A":9,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"The singularity is not part of spacetime. That doesn't mean the black hole (the spacetime around a dense mass) isn't part of our spacetime). Black holes don't suck stuff in, if you are far away they attract stuff the same way a less dense object of the same mass would. The difference is that they are dense so stuff can get closer to them and is then subject to more extreme effects. >do black holes actually just accelerate matter into some distant part of the future? No.","human_ref_B":"I feel like saying \"no\" this does not happen inside a black hole is an impossible statement to make. We don't even know if our physics still apply inside black holes. It's entirely possible and in my opinion very likely that the physics inside a black hole would be so distorted it would be unrecognizable to us. So to say \"this does\/doesn't happen\" isn't very scientific. There could be interstellar's tessaract inside a black hole, not very likely, but by saying it's impossible, we're saying we know something about the inside, when we just don't.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7623.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"m0fx2w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I'm always daydreaming , falling asleep or not paying attention in all my classes. How can I learn from home? I can only focus properly when I am doing two things at once, otherwise i just doze off. In class, I'm not allowed to listen to music or go on my phone, or play with something to keep me focused. But at home i can, and i was wondering, how do i learn physics when i know NOTHING about it?","c_root_id_A":"gq7uszu","c_root_id_B":"gq7wzfa","created_at_utc_A":1615216840,"created_at_utc_B":1615217824,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Try some extra resources like Kahn Academy. There are many videos explaining all kinds of concepts on YouTube.","human_ref_B":"My physics professor told me Newton thought his greatest talent was his ability to focus. Apparently, he could focus for two days straight without sleep on an idea.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":984.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"m0fx2w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I'm always daydreaming , falling asleep or not paying attention in all my classes. How can I learn from home? I can only focus properly when I am doing two things at once, otherwise i just doze off. In class, I'm not allowed to listen to music or go on my phone, or play with something to keep me focused. But at home i can, and i was wondering, how do i learn physics when i know NOTHING about it?","c_root_id_A":"gq7wdsa","c_root_id_B":"gq7wzfa","created_at_utc_A":1615217551,"created_at_utc_B":1615217824,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Sometimes I get overwhelmed by the amount of things I think I need to learn about a subject but if I write them all out it doesn\u2019t seem that difficult to tackle. If you\u2019re learning a topic in physics, random example, classical mechanics. Start with some basics and the their formulas. Figure out some of the history and how these theories were developed and end it off with some practice questions (easy to find online) if you just learn theory you\u2019ll struggle on the problems but if you keep pushing through practice problems then the concepts will become second nature. With classical mechanics you can learn Newton\u2019s equations, kinematics and so on and add some good practice on each of them. Do this slowly with all your topics and you\u2019ll get into a work flow that also becomes a habit after a while! Good luck","human_ref_B":"My physics professor told me Newton thought his greatest talent was his ability to focus. Apparently, he could focus for two days straight without sleep on an idea.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":273.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"m0fx2w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I'm always daydreaming , falling asleep or not paying attention in all my classes. How can I learn from home? I can only focus properly when I am doing two things at once, otherwise i just doze off. In class, I'm not allowed to listen to music or go on my phone, or play with something to keep me focused. But at home i can, and i was wondering, how do i learn physics when i know NOTHING about it?","c_root_id_A":"gq8jcy8","c_root_id_B":"gq9dnrq","created_at_utc_A":1615227221,"created_at_utc_B":1615240386,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Get a small, quiet fidgeting device. A fidget spinner is the obvious choice, though if you're doing in-person classes the sound of it spinning might be a bit distracting to other people. But if you can find some kind of small object to mess around with quietly, it might help you focus, since you said you can only focus when doing two things at once.","human_ref_B":"This seems to me like symptoms of ADHD. A friend of mine had the same problem and school was a struggle, rooted mainly in a misunderstanding of his condition by the teachers. If you can, it wouldn't be a bad idea to talk to a counselor or a psychologist about it. They could help you with some techniques as well as help educators to understand what are you going through. If this is the case, DON'T PANIC. There are a lot of people in this situation and it is manageable! If you cannot access a counselor, there are some exercises you could try. Meditation is a very good exercise to train your mind to focus and has been proven successful in lots of cases. Maybe 10 or 15 min a day. It is not magic, but could help you to focus with practice. I would recommend the use of short videos like khan academy followed by exercises in the topic. Something like 10 min lecture. 10 min exercises. Rest. Repeat. Maybe in short burst you can channel some focus. Last: sport. Physical exercise helps to focus. Like a lot. Try to keep a routine of aerobic exercise","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13165.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"m0fx2w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I'm always daydreaming , falling asleep or not paying attention in all my classes. How can I learn from home? I can only focus properly when I am doing two things at once, otherwise i just doze off. In class, I'm not allowed to listen to music or go on my phone, or play with something to keep me focused. But at home i can, and i was wondering, how do i learn physics when i know NOTHING about it?","c_root_id_A":"gq8jcy8","c_root_id_B":"gq8wx74","created_at_utc_A":1615227221,"created_at_utc_B":1615233055,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Get a small, quiet fidgeting device. A fidget spinner is the obvious choice, though if you're doing in-person classes the sound of it spinning might be a bit distracting to other people. But if you can find some kind of small object to mess around with quietly, it might help you focus, since you said you can only focus when doing two things at once.","human_ref_B":"Meditation is a solid way to improve and strengthen focus. It will take some time though. If you don't know how, I'd recommend Sam Harris, he has a shit ton of resources and videos for guided meditation, and he was the one where it finally worked for me. I had tried off and on over the years and never got it to work, until stumbling upon guided meditation from him after listening to a lecture he was a part of.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5834.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"jsills","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Can a black hole, or any object spin faster than the speed of light? I was wondering, since objects can't move, but a black hole, or its singularity is a point in space, would it be able to spin faster than the speed of light? And could any object with \"no width\" also, theoretically spin faster than the speed of light?","c_root_id_A":"gbzge6k","c_root_id_B":"gbzckiv","created_at_utc_A":1605137837,"created_at_utc_B":1605135747,"score_A":61,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"No. It doesn't really make sense to \"spin\" faster than the speed of light. Angular velocity doesn't have the right units. You can only talk about the speed of a spinning object at a given point, and in that case it doesn't matter whether it's because the object is spinning or moving in a straight line, the velocity is still limited by the speed of light","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t know much about black holes, but for something to spin it has to have some spatial extent. A spinning object is only spinning because all the things that compose it are moving in circles. But their movement isn\u2019t special, so it can\u2019t be faster than light.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2090.0,"score_ratio":5.0833333333} {"post_id":"tadyss","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why does ice float?! I get that water becomes more dense when it melts, But why! Ive searched endlessly for a logical explanation and couldnt really get it. It literally defies the laws of physics and is the only compound that does so. Someone please put an end to my delusions","c_root_id_A":"i003wu1","c_root_id_B":"i0041af","created_at_utc_A":1646850454,"created_at_utc_B":1646850506,"score_A":10,"score_B":118,"human_ref_A":"From This site: \"When water freezes, its molecules get arranged in a crystalline structure, thereby attaining a defined shape. This crystalline structure is less dense, and since there are gaps between individual molecules in the structure, the overall volume increases and water \u2018expands\u2019.\" And thus, since ice is less dense, it floats.","human_ref_B":"The shape and polarity of the H2O molecule means that its most common crystal form is a hexagonal structure. Hexagons have a big empty space in the middle, which means ice crystals take up more space than liquid water.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":52.0,"score_ratio":11.8} {"post_id":"tadyss","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why does ice float?! I get that water becomes more dense when it melts, But why! Ive searched endlessly for a logical explanation and couldnt really get it. It literally defies the laws of physics and is the only compound that does so. Someone please put an end to my delusions","c_root_id_A":"i003wu1","c_root_id_B":"i00r9gf","created_at_utc_A":1646850454,"created_at_utc_B":1646859535,"score_A":10,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"From This site: \"When water freezes, its molecules get arranged in a crystalline structure, thereby attaining a defined shape. This crystalline structure is less dense, and since there are gaps between individual molecules in the structure, the overall volume increases and water \u2018expands\u2019.\" And thus, since ice is less dense, it floats.","human_ref_B":"You've already gotten answer, but I can't let this go uncommented on, if only for my own sanity > It literally defies the laws of physics Well, no, obviously not. The laws of physics are descriptions of how the universe works. The universe has water ice that is less dense than liquid water. Therefore the laws of physics allow water ice that is less dense than liquid water. I know I'm being very pedantic, and *probably* you didn't mean it literally, but it's such a silly statement that it really bugs my brain.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9081.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"tadyss","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why does ice float?! I get that water becomes more dense when it melts, But why! Ive searched endlessly for a logical explanation and couldnt really get it. It literally defies the laws of physics and is the only compound that does so. Someone please put an end to my delusions","c_root_id_A":"i005qsl","c_root_id_B":"i00r9gf","created_at_utc_A":1646851184,"created_at_utc_B":1646859535,"score_A":7,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"From Khan Academy: \"Density of ice and water Water\u2019s lower density in its solid form is due to the way hydrogen bonds are oriented as it freezes. Specifically, in ice, the water molecules are pushed farther apart than they are in liquid water. That means water expands when it freezes. You may have seen this for yourself if you've ever put a sealed glass container containing a mostly-watery food (soup, soda, etc.) into the freezer, only to have it crack or explode as the liquid water inside froze and expanded. With most other liquids, solidification\u2014which occurs when the temperature drops and kinetic (motion) energy of molecules is reduced\u2014allows molecules to pack more tightly than in liquid form, giving the solid a greater density than the liquid. Water is an anomaly (that is, a weird standout) in its lower density as a solid. Because it is less dense, ice floats on the surface of liquid water, as we see for an iceberg or the ice cubes in a glass of iced tea. In lakes and ponds, a layer of ice forms on top of the liquid water, creating an insulating barrier that protects the animals and plant life in the pond below from freezing. Why is it harmful for living things to freeze? We can understand this by thinking back to the case of a bottle of soda pop cracking in the freezer. When a cell freezes, its watery contents expand and its membrane (just like the soda bottle) is broken into pieces.\" Hope this helps. But surely others can expand on it!","human_ref_B":"You've already gotten answer, but I can't let this go uncommented on, if only for my own sanity > It literally defies the laws of physics Well, no, obviously not. The laws of physics are descriptions of how the universe works. The universe has water ice that is less dense than liquid water. Therefore the laws of physics allow water ice that is less dense than liquid water. I know I'm being very pedantic, and *probably* you didn't mean it literally, but it's such a silly statement that it really bugs my brain.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8351.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"tadyss","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why does ice float?! I get that water becomes more dense when it melts, But why! Ive searched endlessly for a logical explanation and couldnt really get it. It literally defies the laws of physics and is the only compound that does so. Someone please put an end to my delusions","c_root_id_A":"i00r9gf","c_root_id_B":"i004c69","created_at_utc_A":1646859535,"created_at_utc_B":1646850629,"score_A":14,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You've already gotten answer, but I can't let this go uncommented on, if only for my own sanity > It literally defies the laws of physics Well, no, obviously not. The laws of physics are descriptions of how the universe works. The universe has water ice that is less dense than liquid water. Therefore the laws of physics allow water ice that is less dense than liquid water. I know I'm being very pedantic, and *probably* you didn't mean it literally, but it's such a silly statement that it really bugs my brain.","human_ref_B":"I think it has to do with the fact that water crystallizes into a hexagonal lattice. This crystal structure has significantly more space. The reason for this lattice has to do with the intermolecular forces in water, namely its two hydrogen bonds. Btw, I think there are other crystal structures of water but I cannot say much about them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8906.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667} {"post_id":"tadyss","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why does ice float?! I get that water becomes more dense when it melts, But why! Ive searched endlessly for a logical explanation and couldnt really get it. It literally defies the laws of physics and is the only compound that does so. Someone please put an end to my delusions","c_root_id_A":"i004c69","c_root_id_B":"i005qsl","created_at_utc_A":1646850629,"created_at_utc_B":1646851184,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I think it has to do with the fact that water crystallizes into a hexagonal lattice. This crystal structure has significantly more space. The reason for this lattice has to do with the intermolecular forces in water, namely its two hydrogen bonds. Btw, I think there are other crystal structures of water but I cannot say much about them.","human_ref_B":"From Khan Academy: \"Density of ice and water Water\u2019s lower density in its solid form is due to the way hydrogen bonds are oriented as it freezes. Specifically, in ice, the water molecules are pushed farther apart than they are in liquid water. That means water expands when it freezes. You may have seen this for yourself if you've ever put a sealed glass container containing a mostly-watery food (soup, soda, etc.) into the freezer, only to have it crack or explode as the liquid water inside froze and expanded. With most other liquids, solidification\u2014which occurs when the temperature drops and kinetic (motion) energy of molecules is reduced\u2014allows molecules to pack more tightly than in liquid form, giving the solid a greater density than the liquid. Water is an anomaly (that is, a weird standout) in its lower density as a solid. Because it is less dense, ice floats on the surface of liquid water, as we see for an iceberg or the ice cubes in a glass of iced tea. In lakes and ponds, a layer of ice forms on top of the liquid water, creating an insulating barrier that protects the animals and plant life in the pond below from freezing. Why is it harmful for living things to freeze? We can understand this by thinking back to the case of a bottle of soda pop cracking in the freezer. When a cell freezes, its watery contents expand and its membrane (just like the soda bottle) is broken into pieces.\" Hope this helps. But surely others can expand on it!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":555.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"sj0a7f","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What is the wavelength of gravitational wave? Does it depend on mass?","c_root_id_A":"hvc6z7v","c_root_id_B":"hvc0zkd","created_at_utc_A":1643840794,"created_at_utc_B":1643838553,"score_A":45,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Well, the speed is the speed of light, and the period is the orbital period of whatever created it (the time it takes to complete one loop on its orbit). These waves are created when something heavy (neutron star, black hole) is in orbit around \/ along with something else heavy (neutron star, black hole). Simplest case: when 2 black holes orbit each other. So you can calculate the wavelength from that, provided you know the orbital period. wavelength = speed of light * orbital period E.g. if the orbital period is 1 day, then the wavelength is 2.59 * 10^10 km, or 173 times greater than the distance from Earth to Sun. https:\/\/www.wolframalpha.com\/input?i=speed+of+light+*+1+day During the black hole mergers that we've detected, the period is very short (hundreds of Hz), so the wavelength is also very short - on the order of hundreds of kilometers.","human_ref_B":"It can be any positive number. > Does it depend on mass? What do you mean?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2241.0,"score_ratio":5.625} {"post_id":"sj0a7f","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What is the wavelength of gravitational wave? Does it depend on mass?","c_root_id_A":"hvcaemm","c_root_id_B":"hvc0zkd","created_at_utc_A":1643842110,"created_at_utc_B":1643838553,"score_A":11,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"It depends not on mass, but on orbital period. The shorter the orbital period, the shorter the wavelength. Since an orbital period can spiral as two objects slowly collide, I would have to guess that the wavelength of gravitational waves runs the gamut from longest in the universe to shortest in the universe.","human_ref_B":"It can be any positive number. > Does it depend on mass? What do you mean?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3557.0,"score_ratio":1.375} {"post_id":"sj0a7f","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What is the wavelength of gravitational wave? Does it depend on mass?","c_root_id_A":"hvchb0g","c_root_id_B":"hvc0zkd","created_at_utc_A":1643844830,"created_at_utc_B":1643838553,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"If you want actual numbers: The LIGO observatory covers a frequency range of roughly a few tens to a couple thousand Hz^[1]. Wavelength is just the speed of the wave *c* over its frequency, so the wavelengths LIGO are sensitive to are very roughly 10 - 1000 Hz \/ 3 * 10^8 m\/s ~ 10^(7)-10^5 metres. On this page there is a graph showing which frequencies are in the range of LIGO. It's a shame we don't have access to longer wavelength, or higher frequency gravitational radiation but hey fortunately ESA and China are planning on launching gravitational wave observatory probes into space that would hopefully allow a better view of that sweet sweet gravitational radiation.","human_ref_B":"It can be any positive number. > Does it depend on mass? What do you mean?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6277.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"sj0a7f","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What is the wavelength of gravitational wave? Does it depend on mass?","c_root_id_A":"hvce5iv","c_root_id_B":"hvchb0g","created_at_utc_A":1643843575,"created_at_utc_B":1643844830,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The Wikipedia page for gravitational waves states the ones detected at LIGO ranged from 35 to 250Hz and links to more detections. Nasa has a nice infographic on frequency ranges. The frequency of the wave is related to the movement of the objects generating the wave, for example (again quoting Wikipedia) for compact binary neutron stars, \"The majority of gravitational radiation emitted will be at twice the orbital frequency.\"","human_ref_B":"If you want actual numbers: The LIGO observatory covers a frequency range of roughly a few tens to a couple thousand Hz^[1]. Wavelength is just the speed of the wave *c* over its frequency, so the wavelengths LIGO are sensitive to are very roughly 10 - 1000 Hz \/ 3 * 10^8 m\/s ~ 10^(7)-10^5 metres. On this page there is a graph showing which frequencies are in the range of LIGO. It's a shame we don't have access to longer wavelength, or higher frequency gravitational radiation but hey fortunately ESA and China are planning on launching gravitational wave observatory probes into space that would hopefully allow a better view of that sweet sweet gravitational radiation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1255.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpnqn41","c_root_id_B":"gpnqo8k","created_at_utc_A":1614870338,"created_at_utc_B":1614870352,"score_A":8,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"You do maths. There is always going to be a low point, or a worst test. The fact that you are nearing the end does not mean that the worst test has to be one of the first. Just move past it and keep going and when you look back at everything it will seem small and insignificant. Like \u201cwhat happened there?\u201d \u201cOh just a weird test, made some bad choices confidently but it was a one off\u201d. I had a calculus class and had done a bunch if practice on optimizations or something and practice at home was going well, got the midterm and all the questions were just sorta odd or set up differently than I expected so I carried on and made a bunch of mistakes confidently. Just sorta didn\u2019t even pick up that I made a little error and carried it through cause the question was a but different so it never clicked it was going poorly. Didn\u2019t do great but it really did feel weird doing so much worse than expected. Just move past it and remember everything you have achieved to get where you are now.","human_ref_B":"A bad professor can destroy a subject. I had one who somehow made me become worse at Math. Why did you decide to study physics? What interested you about it? Figure that out and I'm sure the answer you're looking for will become apparent. Personally I look at physics as the users guide to the universe. A very incomplete users guide. But as a person who was always been fascinated with figuring out how things work whether it be computer code or why gravity is such a harsh mistress, physics was an easy choice of university study.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpnvpxd","c_root_id_B":"gpnseu4","created_at_utc_A":1614872584,"created_at_utc_B":1614871121,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Never make a decision like this right after getting an exam grade. Wait a week.","human_ref_B":"I say you should think about this very carefully. You did badly on a exam and I'm pretty sure we've all been there before. This may make you think you don't like physics anymore but it may also be that you are just upset about this outcome. I'm sorry, this probably isn't the answer you're looking for but you should answer the question yourself. This disappointment comes really from inside you or are you sad for other reasons and transferring this to the physics. I've had moments like this before and a piece of advice I can give is try to study things you enjoyed that made you choose physics. Take a moment to breathe, do some other stuff you like to clear the mind and then think about it again.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1463.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpoibj8","c_root_id_B":"gpnz1sv","created_at_utc_A":1614882285,"created_at_utc_B":1614874037,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hey! A few years ago I took my first fluid mechanics class in an average university in my country, I loved it and always did well, understood the problems, and the underlying physics. I'm also a very bad test taker, and get overwhelmed, and I failed my first midterm. Fast forward a few years and I'm pursuing a PhD in fluid mechanics, in the exact field I want, and in the best university in the country, the french equivalent of MIT or Harvard. If you love the subject and know you're q bad test taker, as I was and still am, you should know to double the work you do on your own, put yourself in exam conditions when you work, and my biggest advice is to understand the underlying physics before trying to understand the math, and then understand the physical meaning of the mathematical terms. Best of luck to you, and I wish you a very long career in physics!","human_ref_B":"Lol I am an honor student in the best university of my country and during my bachelor I used to constantly fail the midterms, finally during graduate I realize it was just me being lazy and not considering it as a real exam so my preparation was worse. Thus don't make this thing a tragedy, I don't know if in your country you can take the final exam or midterms are all, if the midterms are all just take them more seriously and study harder. One decent trick I learned is that if you go to sleep and you are not thinking\/dreamimg about that topics you didn't study enough.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8248.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpoibj8","c_root_id_B":"gpnzmi4","created_at_utc_A":1614882285,"created_at_utc_B":1614874292,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hey! A few years ago I took my first fluid mechanics class in an average university in my country, I loved it and always did well, understood the problems, and the underlying physics. I'm also a very bad test taker, and get overwhelmed, and I failed my first midterm. Fast forward a few years and I'm pursuing a PhD in fluid mechanics, in the exact field I want, and in the best university in the country, the french equivalent of MIT or Harvard. If you love the subject and know you're q bad test taker, as I was and still am, you should know to double the work you do on your own, put yourself in exam conditions when you work, and my biggest advice is to understand the underlying physics before trying to understand the math, and then understand the physical meaning of the mathematical terms. Best of luck to you, and I wish you a very long career in physics!","human_ref_B":"> I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This is a decent analogy here. We only know the universe to a certain degree of precision. If you're looking for everything to line up beautifully, perhaps you should be studying mathematics. If you're looking to take math and use it as a nuanced weapon to further your understanding of how the universe works, then physics is where you do that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7993.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpo55qx","c_root_id_B":"gpoibj8","created_at_utc_A":1614876681,"created_at_utc_B":1614882285,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Finally a topic I'm qualified to speak about! I dropped out of physics for much the same reason as you. Always regreted it. So much so that I'm back studying a part time degree from the open university in maths\/physics in my spare time. One thing I've learnt over the years is most people can learn most things. It's just about finding the right way to learn. Some people will take longer to grasp some concepts. But find others easier. There are so many maths concepts I found impenetrable at University, that on hearing a slightly different explanation make complete sense to me. My advice would be, if you really want this. It's not just about studying your notes, but try and look at a variety of explanations of the same concept. YouTube's a great resource I never had as a kid. I'm sure you'll find a dozen explanation of every quantum related equation\/problem in there. Also. Don't forget, you may have just had bad luck on that particular test. Maybe you made silly mistakes on the day, or it just randomly happened that the areas youre least confident came up. Either way. My advice is. Don't drop out of something you really want. Just try a different method of learning.","human_ref_B":"Hey! A few years ago I took my first fluid mechanics class in an average university in my country, I loved it and always did well, understood the problems, and the underlying physics. I'm also a very bad test taker, and get overwhelmed, and I failed my first midterm. Fast forward a few years and I'm pursuing a PhD in fluid mechanics, in the exact field I want, and in the best university in the country, the french equivalent of MIT or Harvard. If you love the subject and know you're q bad test taker, as I was and still am, you should know to double the work you do on your own, put yourself in exam conditions when you work, and my biggest advice is to understand the underlying physics before trying to understand the math, and then understand the physical meaning of the mathematical terms. Best of luck to you, and I wish you a very long career in physics!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5604.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpoibj8","c_root_id_B":"gpo5ry2","created_at_utc_A":1614882285,"created_at_utc_B":1614876946,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hey! A few years ago I took my first fluid mechanics class in an average university in my country, I loved it and always did well, understood the problems, and the underlying physics. I'm also a very bad test taker, and get overwhelmed, and I failed my first midterm. Fast forward a few years and I'm pursuing a PhD in fluid mechanics, in the exact field I want, and in the best university in the country, the french equivalent of MIT or Harvard. If you love the subject and know you're q bad test taker, as I was and still am, you should know to double the work you do on your own, put yourself in exam conditions when you work, and my biggest advice is to understand the underlying physics before trying to understand the math, and then understand the physical meaning of the mathematical terms. Best of luck to you, and I wish you a very long career in physics!","human_ref_B":"Did you take a look at your script? Is there feedback on where you gone wrong?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5339.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpoibj8","c_root_id_B":"gpodhnp","created_at_utc_A":1614882285,"created_at_utc_B":1614880257,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hey! A few years ago I took my first fluid mechanics class in an average university in my country, I loved it and always did well, understood the problems, and the underlying physics. I'm also a very bad test taker, and get overwhelmed, and I failed my first midterm. Fast forward a few years and I'm pursuing a PhD in fluid mechanics, in the exact field I want, and in the best university in the country, the french equivalent of MIT or Harvard. If you love the subject and know you're q bad test taker, as I was and still am, you should know to double the work you do on your own, put yourself in exam conditions when you work, and my biggest advice is to understand the underlying physics before trying to understand the math, and then understand the physical meaning of the mathematical terms. Best of luck to you, and I wish you a very long career in physics!","human_ref_B":"Studying hard and taking notes means you are cut out for it. The most important things are interest and dedication. Exams on the other hand, are an imperfect measure of ability. They vary depending on professor and how well they prepare you for it. So try not to tie your self-esteem to exams","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2028.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpoxc2u","c_root_id_B":"gpnz1sv","created_at_utc_A":1614888513,"created_at_utc_B":1614874037,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Just a quick word of advice: I don\u2019t think it\u2019s ever a matter of \u201cnot being cut out for\u201d a subject. Everything worth doing with your life is going to be a challenge. No one has \u201cnatural ability\u201d past like high school, unless you\u2019re Einstein or something. Remember that no matter what you choose to do in life, it\u2019s going to be a challenge\u2014in fact what\u2019s the point of doing something if it doesn\u2019t push you and help you grow? So don\u2019t look for signs that you\u2019re \u201ccut out\u201d for something or not, ask yourself which challenge you think is worth taking because you love it. With that mindset, you\u2019ll be unstoppable. \ud83d\ude0a","human_ref_B":"Lol I am an honor student in the best university of my country and during my bachelor I used to constantly fail the midterms, finally during graduate I realize it was just me being lazy and not considering it as a real exam so my preparation was worse. Thus don't make this thing a tragedy, I don't know if in your country you can take the final exam or midterms are all, if the midterms are all just take them more seriously and study harder. One decent trick I learned is that if you go to sleep and you are not thinking\/dreamimg about that topics you didn't study enough.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14476.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpnzmi4","c_root_id_B":"gpoxc2u","created_at_utc_A":1614874292,"created_at_utc_B":1614888513,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This is a decent analogy here. We only know the universe to a certain degree of precision. If you're looking for everything to line up beautifully, perhaps you should be studying mathematics. If you're looking to take math and use it as a nuanced weapon to further your understanding of how the universe works, then physics is where you do that.","human_ref_B":"Just a quick word of advice: I don\u2019t think it\u2019s ever a matter of \u201cnot being cut out for\u201d a subject. Everything worth doing with your life is going to be a challenge. No one has \u201cnatural ability\u201d past like high school, unless you\u2019re Einstein or something. Remember that no matter what you choose to do in life, it\u2019s going to be a challenge\u2014in fact what\u2019s the point of doing something if it doesn\u2019t push you and help you grow? So don\u2019t look for signs that you\u2019re \u201ccut out\u201d for something or not, ask yourself which challenge you think is worth taking because you love it. With that mindset, you\u2019ll be unstoppable. \ud83d\ude0a","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14221.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpo55qx","c_root_id_B":"gpoxc2u","created_at_utc_A":1614876681,"created_at_utc_B":1614888513,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Finally a topic I'm qualified to speak about! I dropped out of physics for much the same reason as you. Always regreted it. So much so that I'm back studying a part time degree from the open university in maths\/physics in my spare time. One thing I've learnt over the years is most people can learn most things. It's just about finding the right way to learn. Some people will take longer to grasp some concepts. But find others easier. There are so many maths concepts I found impenetrable at University, that on hearing a slightly different explanation make complete sense to me. My advice would be, if you really want this. It's not just about studying your notes, but try and look at a variety of explanations of the same concept. YouTube's a great resource I never had as a kid. I'm sure you'll find a dozen explanation of every quantum related equation\/problem in there. Also. Don't forget, you may have just had bad luck on that particular test. Maybe you made silly mistakes on the day, or it just randomly happened that the areas youre least confident came up. Either way. My advice is. Don't drop out of something you really want. Just try a different method of learning.","human_ref_B":"Just a quick word of advice: I don\u2019t think it\u2019s ever a matter of \u201cnot being cut out for\u201d a subject. Everything worth doing with your life is going to be a challenge. No one has \u201cnatural ability\u201d past like high school, unless you\u2019re Einstein or something. Remember that no matter what you choose to do in life, it\u2019s going to be a challenge\u2014in fact what\u2019s the point of doing something if it doesn\u2019t push you and help you grow? So don\u2019t look for signs that you\u2019re \u201ccut out\u201d for something or not, ask yourself which challenge you think is worth taking because you love it. With that mindset, you\u2019ll be unstoppable. \ud83d\ude0a","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11832.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpo5ry2","c_root_id_B":"gpoxc2u","created_at_utc_A":1614876946,"created_at_utc_B":1614888513,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Did you take a look at your script? Is there feedback on where you gone wrong?","human_ref_B":"Just a quick word of advice: I don\u2019t think it\u2019s ever a matter of \u201cnot being cut out for\u201d a subject. Everything worth doing with your life is going to be a challenge. No one has \u201cnatural ability\u201d past like high school, unless you\u2019re Einstein or something. Remember that no matter what you choose to do in life, it\u2019s going to be a challenge\u2014in fact what\u2019s the point of doing something if it doesn\u2019t push you and help you grow? So don\u2019t look for signs that you\u2019re \u201ccut out\u201d for something or not, ask yourself which challenge you think is worth taking because you love it. With that mindset, you\u2019ll be unstoppable. \ud83d\ude0a","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11567.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpoxc2u","c_root_id_B":"gpodhnp","created_at_utc_A":1614888513,"created_at_utc_B":1614880257,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Just a quick word of advice: I don\u2019t think it\u2019s ever a matter of \u201cnot being cut out for\u201d a subject. Everything worth doing with your life is going to be a challenge. No one has \u201cnatural ability\u201d past like high school, unless you\u2019re Einstein or something. Remember that no matter what you choose to do in life, it\u2019s going to be a challenge\u2014in fact what\u2019s the point of doing something if it doesn\u2019t push you and help you grow? So don\u2019t look for signs that you\u2019re \u201ccut out\u201d for something or not, ask yourself which challenge you think is worth taking because you love it. With that mindset, you\u2019ll be unstoppable. \ud83d\ude0a","human_ref_B":"Studying hard and taking notes means you are cut out for it. The most important things are interest and dedication. Exams on the other hand, are an imperfect measure of ability. They vary depending on professor and how well they prepare you for it. So try not to tie your self-esteem to exams","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8256.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpoxc2u","c_root_id_B":"gpotf1x","created_at_utc_A":1614888513,"created_at_utc_B":1614886881,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Just a quick word of advice: I don\u2019t think it\u2019s ever a matter of \u201cnot being cut out for\u201d a subject. Everything worth doing with your life is going to be a challenge. No one has \u201cnatural ability\u201d past like high school, unless you\u2019re Einstein or something. Remember that no matter what you choose to do in life, it\u2019s going to be a challenge\u2014in fact what\u2019s the point of doing something if it doesn\u2019t push you and help you grow? So don\u2019t look for signs that you\u2019re \u201ccut out\u201d for something or not, ask yourself which challenge you think is worth taking because you love it. With that mindset, you\u2019ll be unstoppable. \ud83d\ude0a","human_ref_B":"Physics is tough dude, but it's tough for a reason. Pretty much everyone in physics struggles to a degree, but that doesn't mean they aren't cut out for it. Take this as motivation to do better and keep working, it won't be easy but I'm sure you can do it if you keep trying and don't give up. But if you really don't think it's for you that's okay as well, but just doing bad on one midterm I don't think is a good reason to switch majors. But only you can know whether it's the right decision or not. Good luck!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1632.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpoxc2u","c_root_id_B":"gpowekx","created_at_utc_A":1614888513,"created_at_utc_B":1614888115,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Just a quick word of advice: I don\u2019t think it\u2019s ever a matter of \u201cnot being cut out for\u201d a subject. Everything worth doing with your life is going to be a challenge. No one has \u201cnatural ability\u201d past like high school, unless you\u2019re Einstein or something. Remember that no matter what you choose to do in life, it\u2019s going to be a challenge\u2014in fact what\u2019s the point of doing something if it doesn\u2019t push you and help you grow? So don\u2019t look for signs that you\u2019re \u201ccut out\u201d for something or not, ask yourself which challenge you think is worth taking because you love it. With that mindset, you\u2019ll be unstoppable. \ud83d\ude0a","human_ref_B":"Hey man, I know how you feel. You start thinking you wanna do sth great on your field but then bad grades appear. People say grades doesn't matter but in some way they affect your confidence. I have lived that and yeah it is trash, studying a lot, doing your best but getting bad grades. My advise is to keep doing the things (don't get out of physics), no matter why, you have to find the way to solve this problem of your life, try to find the path you wanna take, and then try a field you get comfortable in and then try another one and so forth, because that's the point of finding a passion, try as many things you ''kinda like'' until you find ''the one''. If you have problems with your studies, it could be that you are doing things in autopilot (many practice problems or solved exams). Try sth new, try to understant the topic from first principles until you get most of it, then do the problems. Try to look youtube videos about active recall and spaced repetition and apply it to your studies and man, keep trying no matter what because that's what makes you different from the rest (not in an ego way). STEM carreers are not an easy thing, we have to be perseverant. Look at Einstein's work, Edison's work, Tesla's work, dou you think that they did everything fast, in an easy way just as we are suppoused to do in college? No, they try and try until they got what they wanted. Don't get out of physics man, work hard, we all have had a rough time in school but that makes us who we are.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":398.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpnz1sv","c_root_id_B":"gpp3dqw","created_at_utc_A":1614874037,"created_at_utc_B":1614891060,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Lol I am an honor student in the best university of my country and during my bachelor I used to constantly fail the midterms, finally during graduate I realize it was just me being lazy and not considering it as a real exam so my preparation was worse. Thus don't make this thing a tragedy, I don't know if in your country you can take the final exam or midterms are all, if the midterms are all just take them more seriously and study harder. One decent trick I learned is that if you go to sleep and you are not thinking\/dreamimg about that topics you didn't study enough.","human_ref_B":"I failed a midterm once in undergrad, like well below average 25% F, and now I\u2019m nearing the tail-end of my physics PhD in theory. A bad exam does not end your career or mean anything about your ability to be a physicist. In fact, precisely because of things like test anxiety you mentioned I think modern curricula place way too much value on tests when there are better ways to gauge learning success and aptitude. How much you enjoy the field does matter, though. Bad professors really suck, but if you are also hating the material and the style of physics then questioning whether you really want to do this is more apt. Btw, I used to also really care about rigour and beauty of math etc. but have grown to appreciate the usefulness of approximations and I think it might be hard to escape having to do this. Unfortunately, for all the beauty we are told the standard model exhibits, if you get to grad school and study QFT I am almost certain you will be appalled by the apparent lack of rigor\/ad hoc-ed-ness of field theory when you encounter things like renormalization and the divergence of QED feynman diagrams and so on. I would say to focus on the rigor and beauty that does exist for QM, and then maybe slowly convince yourself that the approximations we take are required for physical systems where we will need to measure things or predict behavior in an imprecise but tractable way. If you are learning about perturbation theory for example, and don\u2019t like dropping higher ordered terms, I would point to the beauty in having analytic solutions which still can provide intuition when taking limits and still describe reality very well, rather than needing every higher order term which contribute almost nothing, don\u2019t necessarily allow the same physical inspection tricks, and won\u2019t necessarily have a closed, neat form","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17023.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpp3dqw","c_root_id_B":"gpnzmi4","created_at_utc_A":1614891060,"created_at_utc_B":1614874292,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I failed a midterm once in undergrad, like well below average 25% F, and now I\u2019m nearing the tail-end of my physics PhD in theory. A bad exam does not end your career or mean anything about your ability to be a physicist. In fact, precisely because of things like test anxiety you mentioned I think modern curricula place way too much value on tests when there are better ways to gauge learning success and aptitude. How much you enjoy the field does matter, though. Bad professors really suck, but if you are also hating the material and the style of physics then questioning whether you really want to do this is more apt. Btw, I used to also really care about rigour and beauty of math etc. but have grown to appreciate the usefulness of approximations and I think it might be hard to escape having to do this. Unfortunately, for all the beauty we are told the standard model exhibits, if you get to grad school and study QFT I am almost certain you will be appalled by the apparent lack of rigor\/ad hoc-ed-ness of field theory when you encounter things like renormalization and the divergence of QED feynman diagrams and so on. I would say to focus on the rigor and beauty that does exist for QM, and then maybe slowly convince yourself that the approximations we take are required for physical systems where we will need to measure things or predict behavior in an imprecise but tractable way. If you are learning about perturbation theory for example, and don\u2019t like dropping higher ordered terms, I would point to the beauty in having analytic solutions which still can provide intuition when taking limits and still describe reality very well, rather than needing every higher order term which contribute almost nothing, don\u2019t necessarily allow the same physical inspection tricks, and won\u2019t necessarily have a closed, neat form","human_ref_B":"> I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This is a decent analogy here. We only know the universe to a certain degree of precision. If you're looking for everything to line up beautifully, perhaps you should be studying mathematics. If you're looking to take math and use it as a nuanced weapon to further your understanding of how the universe works, then physics is where you do that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16768.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpp3dqw","c_root_id_B":"gpo55qx","created_at_utc_A":1614891060,"created_at_utc_B":1614876681,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I failed a midterm once in undergrad, like well below average 25% F, and now I\u2019m nearing the tail-end of my physics PhD in theory. A bad exam does not end your career or mean anything about your ability to be a physicist. In fact, precisely because of things like test anxiety you mentioned I think modern curricula place way too much value on tests when there are better ways to gauge learning success and aptitude. How much you enjoy the field does matter, though. Bad professors really suck, but if you are also hating the material and the style of physics then questioning whether you really want to do this is more apt. Btw, I used to also really care about rigour and beauty of math etc. but have grown to appreciate the usefulness of approximations and I think it might be hard to escape having to do this. Unfortunately, for all the beauty we are told the standard model exhibits, if you get to grad school and study QFT I am almost certain you will be appalled by the apparent lack of rigor\/ad hoc-ed-ness of field theory when you encounter things like renormalization and the divergence of QED feynman diagrams and so on. I would say to focus on the rigor and beauty that does exist for QM, and then maybe slowly convince yourself that the approximations we take are required for physical systems where we will need to measure things or predict behavior in an imprecise but tractable way. If you are learning about perturbation theory for example, and don\u2019t like dropping higher ordered terms, I would point to the beauty in having analytic solutions which still can provide intuition when taking limits and still describe reality very well, rather than needing every higher order term which contribute almost nothing, don\u2019t necessarily allow the same physical inspection tricks, and won\u2019t necessarily have a closed, neat form","human_ref_B":"Finally a topic I'm qualified to speak about! I dropped out of physics for much the same reason as you. Always regreted it. So much so that I'm back studying a part time degree from the open university in maths\/physics in my spare time. One thing I've learnt over the years is most people can learn most things. It's just about finding the right way to learn. Some people will take longer to grasp some concepts. But find others easier. There are so many maths concepts I found impenetrable at University, that on hearing a slightly different explanation make complete sense to me. My advice would be, if you really want this. It's not just about studying your notes, but try and look at a variety of explanations of the same concept. YouTube's a great resource I never had as a kid. I'm sure you'll find a dozen explanation of every quantum related equation\/problem in there. Also. Don't forget, you may have just had bad luck on that particular test. Maybe you made silly mistakes on the day, or it just randomly happened that the areas youre least confident came up. Either way. My advice is. Don't drop out of something you really want. Just try a different method of learning.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14379.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpp3dqw","c_root_id_B":"gpo5ry2","created_at_utc_A":1614891060,"created_at_utc_B":1614876946,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I failed a midterm once in undergrad, like well below average 25% F, and now I\u2019m nearing the tail-end of my physics PhD in theory. A bad exam does not end your career or mean anything about your ability to be a physicist. In fact, precisely because of things like test anxiety you mentioned I think modern curricula place way too much value on tests when there are better ways to gauge learning success and aptitude. How much you enjoy the field does matter, though. Bad professors really suck, but if you are also hating the material and the style of physics then questioning whether you really want to do this is more apt. Btw, I used to also really care about rigour and beauty of math etc. but have grown to appreciate the usefulness of approximations and I think it might be hard to escape having to do this. Unfortunately, for all the beauty we are told the standard model exhibits, if you get to grad school and study QFT I am almost certain you will be appalled by the apparent lack of rigor\/ad hoc-ed-ness of field theory when you encounter things like renormalization and the divergence of QED feynman diagrams and so on. I would say to focus on the rigor and beauty that does exist for QM, and then maybe slowly convince yourself that the approximations we take are required for physical systems where we will need to measure things or predict behavior in an imprecise but tractable way. If you are learning about perturbation theory for example, and don\u2019t like dropping higher ordered terms, I would point to the beauty in having analytic solutions which still can provide intuition when taking limits and still describe reality very well, rather than needing every higher order term which contribute almost nothing, don\u2019t necessarily allow the same physical inspection tricks, and won\u2019t necessarily have a closed, neat form","human_ref_B":"Did you take a look at your script? Is there feedback on where you gone wrong?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14114.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpodhnp","c_root_id_B":"gpp3dqw","created_at_utc_A":1614880257,"created_at_utc_B":1614891060,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Studying hard and taking notes means you are cut out for it. The most important things are interest and dedication. Exams on the other hand, are an imperfect measure of ability. They vary depending on professor and how well they prepare you for it. So try not to tie your self-esteem to exams","human_ref_B":"I failed a midterm once in undergrad, like well below average 25% F, and now I\u2019m nearing the tail-end of my physics PhD in theory. A bad exam does not end your career or mean anything about your ability to be a physicist. In fact, precisely because of things like test anxiety you mentioned I think modern curricula place way too much value on tests when there are better ways to gauge learning success and aptitude. How much you enjoy the field does matter, though. Bad professors really suck, but if you are also hating the material and the style of physics then questioning whether you really want to do this is more apt. Btw, I used to also really care about rigour and beauty of math etc. but have grown to appreciate the usefulness of approximations and I think it might be hard to escape having to do this. Unfortunately, for all the beauty we are told the standard model exhibits, if you get to grad school and study QFT I am almost certain you will be appalled by the apparent lack of rigor\/ad hoc-ed-ness of field theory when you encounter things like renormalization and the divergence of QED feynman diagrams and so on. I would say to focus on the rigor and beauty that does exist for QM, and then maybe slowly convince yourself that the approximations we take are required for physical systems where we will need to measure things or predict behavior in an imprecise but tractable way. If you are learning about perturbation theory for example, and don\u2019t like dropping higher ordered terms, I would point to the beauty in having analytic solutions which still can provide intuition when taking limits and still describe reality very well, rather than needing every higher order term which contribute almost nothing, don\u2019t necessarily allow the same physical inspection tricks, and won\u2019t necessarily have a closed, neat form","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10803.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpotf1x","c_root_id_B":"gpp3dqw","created_at_utc_A":1614886881,"created_at_utc_B":1614891060,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Physics is tough dude, but it's tough for a reason. Pretty much everyone in physics struggles to a degree, but that doesn't mean they aren't cut out for it. Take this as motivation to do better and keep working, it won't be easy but I'm sure you can do it if you keep trying and don't give up. But if you really don't think it's for you that's okay as well, but just doing bad on one midterm I don't think is a good reason to switch majors. But only you can know whether it's the right decision or not. Good luck!","human_ref_B":"I failed a midterm once in undergrad, like well below average 25% F, and now I\u2019m nearing the tail-end of my physics PhD in theory. A bad exam does not end your career or mean anything about your ability to be a physicist. In fact, precisely because of things like test anxiety you mentioned I think modern curricula place way too much value on tests when there are better ways to gauge learning success and aptitude. How much you enjoy the field does matter, though. Bad professors really suck, but if you are also hating the material and the style of physics then questioning whether you really want to do this is more apt. Btw, I used to also really care about rigour and beauty of math etc. but have grown to appreciate the usefulness of approximations and I think it might be hard to escape having to do this. Unfortunately, for all the beauty we are told the standard model exhibits, if you get to grad school and study QFT I am almost certain you will be appalled by the apparent lack of rigor\/ad hoc-ed-ness of field theory when you encounter things like renormalization and the divergence of QED feynman diagrams and so on. I would say to focus on the rigor and beauty that does exist for QM, and then maybe slowly convince yourself that the approximations we take are required for physical systems where we will need to measure things or predict behavior in an imprecise but tractable way. If you are learning about perturbation theory for example, and don\u2019t like dropping higher ordered terms, I would point to the beauty in having analytic solutions which still can provide intuition when taking limits and still describe reality very well, rather than needing every higher order term which contribute almost nothing, don\u2019t necessarily allow the same physical inspection tricks, and won\u2019t necessarily have a closed, neat form","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4179.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpowekx","c_root_id_B":"gpp3dqw","created_at_utc_A":1614888115,"created_at_utc_B":1614891060,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Hey man, I know how you feel. You start thinking you wanna do sth great on your field but then bad grades appear. People say grades doesn't matter but in some way they affect your confidence. I have lived that and yeah it is trash, studying a lot, doing your best but getting bad grades. My advise is to keep doing the things (don't get out of physics), no matter why, you have to find the way to solve this problem of your life, try to find the path you wanna take, and then try a field you get comfortable in and then try another one and so forth, because that's the point of finding a passion, try as many things you ''kinda like'' until you find ''the one''. If you have problems with your studies, it could be that you are doing things in autopilot (many practice problems or solved exams). Try sth new, try to understant the topic from first principles until you get most of it, then do the problems. Try to look youtube videos about active recall and spaced repetition and apply it to your studies and man, keep trying no matter what because that's what makes you different from the rest (not in an ego way). STEM carreers are not an easy thing, we have to be perseverant. Look at Einstein's work, Edison's work, Tesla's work, dou you think that they did everything fast, in an easy way just as we are suppoused to do in college? No, they try and try until they got what they wanted. Don't get out of physics man, work hard, we all have had a rough time in school but that makes us who we are.","human_ref_B":"I failed a midterm once in undergrad, like well below average 25% F, and now I\u2019m nearing the tail-end of my physics PhD in theory. A bad exam does not end your career or mean anything about your ability to be a physicist. In fact, precisely because of things like test anxiety you mentioned I think modern curricula place way too much value on tests when there are better ways to gauge learning success and aptitude. How much you enjoy the field does matter, though. Bad professors really suck, but if you are also hating the material and the style of physics then questioning whether you really want to do this is more apt. Btw, I used to also really care about rigour and beauty of math etc. but have grown to appreciate the usefulness of approximations and I think it might be hard to escape having to do this. Unfortunately, for all the beauty we are told the standard model exhibits, if you get to grad school and study QFT I am almost certain you will be appalled by the apparent lack of rigor\/ad hoc-ed-ness of field theory when you encounter things like renormalization and the divergence of QED feynman diagrams and so on. I would say to focus on the rigor and beauty that does exist for QM, and then maybe slowly convince yourself that the approximations we take are required for physical systems where we will need to measure things or predict behavior in an imprecise but tractable way. If you are learning about perturbation theory for example, and don\u2019t like dropping higher ordered terms, I would point to the beauty in having analytic solutions which still can provide intuition when taking limits and still describe reality very well, rather than needing every higher order term which contribute almost nothing, don\u2019t necessarily allow the same physical inspection tricks, and won\u2019t necessarily have a closed, neat form","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2945.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lxll5w","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Did badly on a midterm, wondering if I this is a sign I'm not cut out for Physics I did badly on my quantum mechanics midterm and it's really made me reconsider why I'm doing Physics. I studied hard; made notes, went through 20+ practice problems, solved the practice exam and did decently. The homework for this class is incredibly difficult, but I've been doing well. When I discuss problems with TAs and my peers, I know that I understand what's happening (in as much as an undergrad in a q mech class can). That's why my midterm result is so... jarring. I have no idea what I could have done differently. It was a really hard test, but I was suitably prepared for it. Clearly, I must be unable to see how much I don't know. Some caveats: I had to give the exam in the middle of the night and I'm a fairly bad test taker. By fairly bad I mean that I get easily overwhelmed and anxious, but I usually still do above the median. Maybe I had a bad day, but is that really an excuse? I'm set up for around a low B if I do not-so-well in the final. My question is now should I continue studying Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a very fundamental topic, and more relevant for current research than the classical Physics classes I've taken before and done well in. This class sort of feels like the make it or break it moment. I know graduate schools look at grades in q mech closely. I've always wanted to be a theorist, and I know its incredibly difficult to break into this part of Physics academia. Is this a sign I'm not cut out for it? I guess this question also comes from the fact that I find Physics... joyless. I've had REALLY bad teaching throughout my undergrad, and its definitely made me hate what I'm doing. I guess I also find the lack of mathematical rigour disturbing; how can an approximation be beautiful? This sort of feels like the final nail in the coffin. Why am I studying I barely like and am apparently not good at? I wanted to study Physics for its beauty and the fact that I believed if I worked hard enough I could push the boundaries of human knowledge further. I'm not so sure if that's true anymore. I talked to my professor, and they said I shouldn't let this dishearten me. I don't think I'm disheartened, I just want to make a reasonable decision, and this is an important data point. I don't want to be blinded by the fact that Physics is something I've always dreamed of doing. Does anyone have some advice?","c_root_id_A":"gpoxnhb","c_root_id_B":"gpp3dqw","created_at_utc_A":1614888648,"created_at_utc_B":1614891060,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You are not cut out for physics if and only if you don't have a passion for it. To hell with the midterm, all of us made bad grades at some point. The only thing is that you find physics joyless... but it might be because of bad teachers or experiences such as the one you mention in the topic, and it may be temporary. If physics is your passion, you will do it no matter what, and advance in it.","human_ref_B":"I failed a midterm once in undergrad, like well below average 25% F, and now I\u2019m nearing the tail-end of my physics PhD in theory. A bad exam does not end your career or mean anything about your ability to be a physicist. In fact, precisely because of things like test anxiety you mentioned I think modern curricula place way too much value on tests when there are better ways to gauge learning success and aptitude. How much you enjoy the field does matter, though. Bad professors really suck, but if you are also hating the material and the style of physics then questioning whether you really want to do this is more apt. Btw, I used to also really care about rigour and beauty of math etc. but have grown to appreciate the usefulness of approximations and I think it might be hard to escape having to do this. Unfortunately, for all the beauty we are told the standard model exhibits, if you get to grad school and study QFT I am almost certain you will be appalled by the apparent lack of rigor\/ad hoc-ed-ness of field theory when you encounter things like renormalization and the divergence of QED feynman diagrams and so on. I would say to focus on the rigor and beauty that does exist for QM, and then maybe slowly convince yourself that the approximations we take are required for physical systems where we will need to measure things or predict behavior in an imprecise but tractable way. If you are learning about perturbation theory for example, and don\u2019t like dropping higher ordered terms, I would point to the beauty in having analytic solutions which still can provide intuition when taking limits and still describe reality very well, rather than needing every higher order term which contribute almost nothing, don\u2019t necessarily allow the same physical inspection tricks, and won\u2019t necessarily have a closed, neat form","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2412.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftls9kc","c_root_id_B":"ftlv9st","created_at_utc_A":1591810504,"created_at_utc_B":1591811852,"score_A":21,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"More important than being \"a genius in physics\" is how much math you already know. You need calculus, linear algebra and PDEs. If you're not comfortable with those, start there instead. If you want to \"get into\" quantum physics for your career, just study physics at university.","human_ref_B":"griffiths\u2019s \u201cIntro to quantum mechanics\u201d. You need a solid background in linear algebra, calculus, and differential equations. This book is about sophomore or junior level undergrad.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1348.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftlz2x4","c_root_id_B":"ftmgai8","created_at_utc_A":1591813621,"created_at_utc_B":1591821758,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Rather than a quantum book, I'd start with a modern physics book. It'd be better suited to your math level and would probably also have relativity, which is important later in quantum. The one we used for my sophomore level class was \"Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers\" by Thornton and Rex. I loved it.","human_ref_B":"In addition to all the quantum books people are recommending, I would recommend Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas (free PDF linked below). It covers all the math you will need for undergraduate physics, including wave mechanics and spherical harmonics. https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:\/\/faculty.psau.edu.sa\/filedownload\/doc-4-pdf-0a187866618ca3049030ec5014860ae8-original.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwii39CBjfjpAhWzoFsKHU-fCHcQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2PVlVj--3-S-KR0C93_ndk Edit: added author","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8137.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftm886c","c_root_id_B":"ftmgai8","created_at_utc_A":1591817913,"created_at_utc_B":1591821758,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"There are Leonard Susskind lectures available on YouTube. Worked great for me.","human_ref_B":"In addition to all the quantum books people are recommending, I would recommend Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas (free PDF linked below). It covers all the math you will need for undergraduate physics, including wave mechanics and spherical harmonics. https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:\/\/faculty.psau.edu.sa\/filedownload\/doc-4-pdf-0a187866618ca3049030ec5014860ae8-original.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwii39CBjfjpAhWzoFsKHU-fCHcQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2PVlVj--3-S-KR0C93_ndk Edit: added author","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3845.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftmgai8","c_root_id_B":"ftmdxfg","created_at_utc_A":1591821758,"created_at_utc_B":1591820628,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In addition to all the quantum books people are recommending, I would recommend Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas (free PDF linked below). It covers all the math you will need for undergraduate physics, including wave mechanics and spherical harmonics. https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:\/\/faculty.psau.edu.sa\/filedownload\/doc-4-pdf-0a187866618ca3049030ec5014860ae8-original.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwii39CBjfjpAhWzoFsKHU-fCHcQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2PVlVj--3-S-KR0C93_ndk Edit: added author","human_ref_B":"Griffith's \"Intro to quantum mechanics\" followed by Zettili's \"Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and applications\" would be my suggestion. Griffith is great for a less rigorous intro and Zettili is more involved but is still approachable. Stay away from Landau. If you're new to physics, you might want to pick up a general physics book like Halliday or Serway first.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1130.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftmgai8","c_root_id_B":"ftma6ok","created_at_utc_A":1591821758,"created_at_utc_B":1591818836,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In addition to all the quantum books people are recommending, I would recommend Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas (free PDF linked below). It covers all the math you will need for undergraduate physics, including wave mechanics and spherical harmonics. https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:\/\/faculty.psau.edu.sa\/filedownload\/doc-4-pdf-0a187866618ca3049030ec5014860ae8-original.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwii39CBjfjpAhWzoFsKHU-fCHcQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2PVlVj--3-S-KR0C93_ndk Edit: added author","human_ref_B":"Ready the Theoretical Minimum by Susskind and if you want to go deeper, check out Diracs book on Quantum Mehanics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2922.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftmcljs","c_root_id_B":"ftmgai8","created_at_utc_A":1591819988,"created_at_utc_B":1591821758,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"You need to first study physics at the level of Halliday&Resnick, then classical mechanics at the level of Morin or Taylor or Marion&Thornton, then classical electrodynamics at the level of Griffiths or Morin&Purcell. Then you need to study complex numbers and functions and finite&infinite dimensional vector spaces at the level of Shankar (his book Basic Training in Mathematics). Then you are ready for QM at the level of of McIntyre (I recommend skipping Griffiths QM).","human_ref_B":"In addition to all the quantum books people are recommending, I would recommend Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas (free PDF linked below). It covers all the math you will need for undergraduate physics, including wave mechanics and spherical harmonics. https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:\/\/faculty.psau.edu.sa\/filedownload\/doc-4-pdf-0a187866618ca3049030ec5014860ae8-original.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwii39CBjfjpAhWzoFsKHU-fCHcQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2PVlVj--3-S-KR0C93_ndk Edit: added author","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1770.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftmjod8","c_root_id_B":"ftlz2x4","created_at_utc_A":1591823373,"created_at_utc_B":1591813621,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Principles of quantum mechanics by shankar gives an intro to both linear algebra and classical mechanics. I would reccomend this over griffiths","human_ref_B":"Rather than a quantum book, I'd start with a modern physics book. It'd be better suited to your math level and would probably also have relativity, which is important later in quantum. The one we used for my sophomore level class was \"Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers\" by Thornton and Rex. I loved it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9752.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftmjod8","c_root_id_B":"ftm886c","created_at_utc_A":1591823373,"created_at_utc_B":1591817913,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Principles of quantum mechanics by shankar gives an intro to both linear algebra and classical mechanics. I would reccomend this over griffiths","human_ref_B":"There are Leonard Susskind lectures available on YouTube. Worked great for me.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5460.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftmjod8","c_root_id_B":"ftmdxfg","created_at_utc_A":1591823373,"created_at_utc_B":1591820628,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Principles of quantum mechanics by shankar gives an intro to both linear algebra and classical mechanics. I would reccomend this over griffiths","human_ref_B":"Griffith's \"Intro to quantum mechanics\" followed by Zettili's \"Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and applications\" would be my suggestion. Griffith is great for a less rigorous intro and Zettili is more involved but is still approachable. Stay away from Landau. If you're new to physics, you might want to pick up a general physics book like Halliday or Serway first.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2745.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftmjod8","c_root_id_B":"ftma6ok","created_at_utc_A":1591823373,"created_at_utc_B":1591818836,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Principles of quantum mechanics by shankar gives an intro to both linear algebra and classical mechanics. I would reccomend this over griffiths","human_ref_B":"Ready the Theoretical Minimum by Susskind and if you want to go deeper, check out Diracs book on Quantum Mehanics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4537.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftmcljs","c_root_id_B":"ftmjod8","created_at_utc_A":1591819988,"created_at_utc_B":1591823373,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"You need to first study physics at the level of Halliday&Resnick, then classical mechanics at the level of Morin or Taylor or Marion&Thornton, then classical electrodynamics at the level of Griffiths or Morin&Purcell. Then you need to study complex numbers and functions and finite&infinite dimensional vector spaces at the level of Shankar (his book Basic Training in Mathematics). Then you are ready for QM at the level of of McIntyre (I recommend skipping Griffiths QM).","human_ref_B":"Principles of quantum mechanics by shankar gives an intro to both linear algebra and classical mechanics. I would reccomend this over griffiths","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3385.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftnnn9s","c_root_id_B":"ftmdxfg","created_at_utc_A":1591844417,"created_at_utc_B":1591820628,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Cohen-Tannoudji has a two volume set on quantum mechanics. Best I've ever read. Shankar is a close second, followed by Zetilli","human_ref_B":"Griffith's \"Intro to quantum mechanics\" followed by Zettili's \"Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and applications\" would be my suggestion. Griffith is great for a less rigorous intro and Zettili is more involved but is still approachable. Stay away from Landau. If you're new to physics, you might want to pick up a general physics book like Halliday or Serway first.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23789.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftmdxfg","c_root_id_B":"ftmcljs","created_at_utc_A":1591820628,"created_at_utc_B":1591819988,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Griffith's \"Intro to quantum mechanics\" followed by Zettili's \"Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and applications\" would be my suggestion. Griffith is great for a less rigorous intro and Zettili is more involved but is still approachable. Stay away from Landau. If you're new to physics, you might want to pick up a general physics book like Halliday or Serway first.","human_ref_B":"You need to first study physics at the level of Halliday&Resnick, then classical mechanics at the level of Morin or Taylor or Marion&Thornton, then classical electrodynamics at the level of Griffiths or Morin&Purcell. Then you need to study complex numbers and functions and finite&infinite dimensional vector spaces at the level of Shankar (his book Basic Training in Mathematics). Then you are ready for QM at the level of of McIntyre (I recommend skipping Griffiths QM).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":640.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftma6ok","c_root_id_B":"ftnnn9s","created_at_utc_A":1591818836,"created_at_utc_B":1591844417,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Ready the Theoretical Minimum by Susskind and if you want to go deeper, check out Diracs book on Quantum Mehanics.","human_ref_B":"Cohen-Tannoudji has a two volume set on quantum mechanics. Best I've ever read. Shankar is a close second, followed by Zetilli","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25581.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftmoazy","c_root_id_B":"ftnnn9s","created_at_utc_A":1591825527,"created_at_utc_B":1591844417,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"McIntyre beats the hell out of Griffiths. It is more technical than Griffiths though, but you get a *far* better foundation.","human_ref_B":"Cohen-Tannoudji has a two volume set on quantum mechanics. Best I've ever read. Shankar is a close second, followed by Zetilli","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18890.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftnnn9s","c_root_id_B":"ftmcljs","created_at_utc_A":1591844417,"created_at_utc_B":1591819988,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Cohen-Tannoudji has a two volume set on quantum mechanics. Best I've ever read. Shankar is a close second, followed by Zetilli","human_ref_B":"You need to first study physics at the level of Halliday&Resnick, then classical mechanics at the level of Morin or Taylor or Marion&Thornton, then classical electrodynamics at the level of Griffiths or Morin&Purcell. Then you need to study complex numbers and functions and finite&infinite dimensional vector spaces at the level of Shankar (his book Basic Training in Mathematics). Then you are ready for QM at the level of of McIntyre (I recommend skipping Griffiths QM).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24429.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftmqqho","c_root_id_B":"ftnnn9s","created_at_utc_A":1591826697,"created_at_utc_B":1591844417,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I liked Sakurai's books for that. But as everybody is different, the best thing to look into different books and see what you like the best. Of course that's only feasible when you have access to a library with that books (which could be a bit difficult of course currently).","human_ref_B":"Cohen-Tannoudji has a two volume set on quantum mechanics. Best I've ever read. Shankar is a close second, followed by Zetilli","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17720.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftnnn9s","c_root_id_B":"ftmvfup","created_at_utc_A":1591844417,"created_at_utc_B":1591829098,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Cohen-Tannoudji has a two volume set on quantum mechanics. Best I've ever read. Shankar is a close second, followed by Zetilli","human_ref_B":"I made a repository of recommended textbooks, can check post history. Lot of people suggest Griffiths, so have I, but I've recently changed my mind and will suggest McIntyre over Griffiths. Griffiths questions can be mind bogglingly inane and some of the content oversimplified to the point your just creating extra work for yourself later on. McIntyre is a slight step up. Also, obligatory assumption you've covered up to multivariate calculus at least. Otherwise you need to pick up your math skills before tackling any type of QM in a meaningful way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15319.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"h0fi5j","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Quantum physics book I'm looking for recommendations for quantum physics books to proceed a serious study from, although I'm not a genius in physics, and also i have no idea the requirements of knowledge to understand quantum physics, but i really want to get into it for my career. Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"ftmcljs","c_root_id_B":"ftmoazy","created_at_utc_A":1591819988,"created_at_utc_B":1591825527,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You need to first study physics at the level of Halliday&Resnick, then classical mechanics at the level of Morin or Taylor or Marion&Thornton, then classical electrodynamics at the level of Griffiths or Morin&Purcell. Then you need to study complex numbers and functions and finite&infinite dimensional vector spaces at the level of Shankar (his book Basic Training in Mathematics). Then you are ready for QM at the level of of McIntyre (I recommend skipping Griffiths QM).","human_ref_B":"McIntyre beats the hell out of Griffiths. It is more technical than Griffiths though, but you get a *far* better foundation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5539.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih4mofo","c_root_id_B":"ih4n3nc","created_at_utc_A":1658451229,"created_at_utc_B":1658451425,"score_A":24,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"The most fundamental rules that Nature follows","human_ref_B":"I would start by asking them what questions they have about physics and then explain from there, based on their answer. Kids are wonderful. I recently did an outreach with a local boys and girls club. Had a kid ask me what would happen if we replaced space with electricity. Wonderful question with no explanation in my mind but I love to see the uninhibited questions. He also said the sun can\u2019t die because god keeps refilling it and I strategically deflected to another student. Made me laugh at first but also really ponder what that would be. Death. Death is what it is. But excellent question from a young mind.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":196.0,"score_ratio":1.2916666667} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih4zqz9","c_root_id_B":"ih4mofo","created_at_utc_A":1658457284,"created_at_utc_B":1658451229,"score_A":27,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Probably just how the universe works. You could tell them the different types of physics and ask them what sounds the most interesting.","human_ref_B":"The most fundamental rules that Nature follows","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6055.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih4qsie","c_root_id_B":"ih4zqz9","created_at_utc_A":1658453123,"created_at_utc_B":1658457284,"score_A":15,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"Studying the bits that make up the universe and what happens when you get them together.","human_ref_B":"Probably just how the universe works. You could tell them the different types of physics and ask them what sounds the most interesting.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4161.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih4zqz9","c_root_id_B":"ih4wf5p","created_at_utc_A":1658457284,"created_at_utc_B":1658455732,"score_A":27,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Probably just how the universe works. You could tell them the different types of physics and ask them what sounds the most interesting.","human_ref_B":"For adults, I describe it as the study of motion and fields. Since a child wouldn't know what a field is, I'd instead say that it's the study of motion and how objects affect each other.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1552.0,"score_ratio":13.5} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih4qsie","c_root_id_B":"ih55ype","created_at_utc_A":1658453123,"created_at_utc_B":1658460353,"score_A":15,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Studying the bits that make up the universe and what happens when you get them together.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d have them pick up a rock and drop it, and guess how long it took for it to fall to the ground. Then I\u2019d have them pick it up again and throw it, and guess how far they threw the rock. After which I\u2019d explain that the study of physics enables us to guess these things more accurately based on dropping and throwing multiple rocks.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7230.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih55ype","c_root_id_B":"ih54k9t","created_at_utc_A":1658460353,"created_at_utc_B":1658459642,"score_A":20,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019d have them pick up a rock and drop it, and guess how long it took for it to fall to the ground. Then I\u2019d have them pick it up again and throw it, and guess how far they threw the rock. After which I\u2019d explain that the study of physics enables us to guess these things more accurately based on dropping and throwing multiple rocks.","human_ref_B":"Physics is the study of how things vibrate. Philosophy\/Religion is the study of why things vibrate. Math is the expression of vibration. edit: There\u2019s a good quote that inspired my comment that I forget, but it\u2019s pretty similar. If I can find it i'll add it","labels":1,"seconds_difference":711.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih52qzh","c_root_id_B":"ih55ype","created_at_utc_A":1658458737,"created_at_utc_B":1658460353,"score_A":4,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Physics describes how things behave.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d have them pick up a rock and drop it, and guess how long it took for it to fall to the ground. Then I\u2019d have them pick it up again and throw it, and guess how far they threw the rock. After which I\u2019d explain that the study of physics enables us to guess these things more accurately based on dropping and throwing multiple rocks.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1616.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih55ype","c_root_id_B":"ih4wf5p","created_at_utc_A":1658460353,"created_at_utc_B":1658455732,"score_A":20,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019d have them pick up a rock and drop it, and guess how long it took for it to fall to the ground. Then I\u2019d have them pick it up again and throw it, and guess how far they threw the rock. After which I\u2019d explain that the study of physics enables us to guess these things more accurately based on dropping and throwing multiple rocks.","human_ref_B":"For adults, I describe it as the study of motion and fields. Since a child wouldn't know what a field is, I'd instead say that it's the study of motion and how objects affect each other.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4621.0,"score_ratio":10.0} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih52qzh","c_root_id_B":"ih54k9t","created_at_utc_A":1658458737,"created_at_utc_B":1658459642,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Physics describes how things behave.","human_ref_B":"Physics is the study of how things vibrate. Philosophy\/Religion is the study of why things vibrate. Math is the expression of vibration. edit: There\u2019s a good quote that inspired my comment that I forget, but it\u2019s pretty similar. If I can find it i'll add it","labels":0,"seconds_difference":905.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih4wf5p","c_root_id_B":"ih54k9t","created_at_utc_A":1658455732,"created_at_utc_B":1658459642,"score_A":2,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"For adults, I describe it as the study of motion and fields. Since a child wouldn't know what a field is, I'd instead say that it's the study of motion and how objects affect each other.","human_ref_B":"Physics is the study of how things vibrate. Philosophy\/Religion is the study of why things vibrate. Math is the expression of vibration. edit: There\u2019s a good quote that inspired my comment that I forget, but it\u2019s pretty similar. If I can find it i'll add it","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3910.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih59dxv","c_root_id_B":"ih52qzh","created_at_utc_A":1658462145,"created_at_utc_B":1658458737,"score_A":9,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Physics is the science of how and why things move.","human_ref_B":"Physics describes how things behave.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3408.0,"score_ratio":2.25} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih59dxv","c_root_id_B":"ih4wf5p","created_at_utc_A":1658462145,"created_at_utc_B":1658455732,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Physics is the science of how and why things move.","human_ref_B":"For adults, I describe it as the study of motion and fields. Since a child wouldn't know what a field is, I'd instead say that it's the study of motion and how objects affect each other.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6413.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih4wf5p","c_root_id_B":"ih52qzh","created_at_utc_A":1658455732,"created_at_utc_B":1658458737,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"For adults, I describe it as the study of motion and fields. Since a child wouldn't know what a field is, I'd instead say that it's the study of motion and how objects affect each other.","human_ref_B":"Physics describes how things behave.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3005.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"w4woc7","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How would you explain to a 10-year-old what physics is? (I am not a 10yo, this is just a hypothetical)","c_root_id_A":"ih4wf5p","c_root_id_B":"ih5egd1","created_at_utc_A":1658455732,"created_at_utc_B":1658464963,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"For adults, I describe it as the study of motion and fields. Since a child wouldn't know what a field is, I'd instead say that it's the study of motion and how objects affect each other.","human_ref_B":"**Physics is what we use to describe everything.** I mean, technically that is mathematics, but I think of physics as applied mathematics. Yes, there's chemistry and geography and such, but those as more specific than physics. Physics is the over-arching language that all the other sciences fall under. And physics falls under mathematics","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9231.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"z2bal6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Could dark matter have a periodic table of its own nature? If it\u2019s evident that dark matter interacts with gravity and our realities forces in a similar way to normal matter, would it make sense that instead of a broad \u201cdark matter\u201d term, there would be individual pieces of dark matter making up these mass amounts?","c_root_id_A":"ixfm5ih","c_root_id_B":"ixflirs","created_at_utc_A":1669168576,"created_at_utc_B":1669168272,"score_A":47,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"It's possible. The space of potential dark matter candidates is exceptionally large and people have theorized some strange stuff. A couple theories that come to mind you might find interesting are \"mirror DM\", \"asymmetric DM\", \"composite DM\", etc.","human_ref_B":"I don't think so, as dark matter doesn't form any sort of structure like regular matter Over galactic scales, matter forms disks because of the interaction between particles, but dark matter remains spherical afaik, so it doesn't even interact with itself through electromagnetism or any analog field I'm an engineer so, this ain't my field of expertise, take my answer as an appetizer while no specialists show up","labels":1,"seconds_difference":304.0,"score_ratio":2.9375} {"post_id":"z2bal6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Could dark matter have a periodic table of its own nature? If it\u2019s evident that dark matter interacts with gravity and our realities forces in a similar way to normal matter, would it make sense that instead of a broad \u201cdark matter\u201d term, there would be individual pieces of dark matter making up these mass amounts?","c_root_id_A":"ixfj9fb","c_root_id_B":"ixfm5ih","created_at_utc_A":1669167168,"created_at_utc_B":1669168576,"score_A":7,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"If it interacts with itself strong enough, mayhaps","human_ref_B":"It's possible. The space of potential dark matter candidates is exceptionally large and people have theorized some strange stuff. A couple theories that come to mind you might find interesting are \"mirror DM\", \"asymmetric DM\", \"composite DM\", etc.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1408.0,"score_ratio":6.7142857143} {"post_id":"z2bal6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Could dark matter have a periodic table of its own nature? If it\u2019s evident that dark matter interacts with gravity and our realities forces in a similar way to normal matter, would it make sense that instead of a broad \u201cdark matter\u201d term, there would be individual pieces of dark matter making up these mass amounts?","c_root_id_A":"ixfn4o9","c_root_id_B":"ixflirs","created_at_utc_A":1669169044,"created_at_utc_B":1669168272,"score_A":21,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"> and our realities forces in a similar way to normal matter, It doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force at all, or else we would see it. But the idea that dark matter is not one thing, but several things is very plausible! There are many candidates for dark matter with a wide variety of masses and other properties. We're ruling them out slowly, but the ones that could remain could each form a fraction of the total dark matter.","human_ref_B":"I don't think so, as dark matter doesn't form any sort of structure like regular matter Over galactic scales, matter forms disks because of the interaction between particles, but dark matter remains spherical afaik, so it doesn't even interact with itself through electromagnetism or any analog field I'm an engineer so, this ain't my field of expertise, take my answer as an appetizer while no specialists show up","labels":1,"seconds_difference":772.0,"score_ratio":1.3125} {"post_id":"z2bal6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Could dark matter have a periodic table of its own nature? If it\u2019s evident that dark matter interacts with gravity and our realities forces in a similar way to normal matter, would it make sense that instead of a broad \u201cdark matter\u201d term, there would be individual pieces of dark matter making up these mass amounts?","c_root_id_A":"ixfn4o9","c_root_id_B":"ixfj9fb","created_at_utc_A":1669169044,"created_at_utc_B":1669167168,"score_A":21,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> and our realities forces in a similar way to normal matter, It doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force at all, or else we would see it. But the idea that dark matter is not one thing, but several things is very plausible! There are many candidates for dark matter with a wide variety of masses and other properties. We're ruling them out slowly, but the ones that could remain could each form a fraction of the total dark matter.","human_ref_B":"If it interacts with itself strong enough, mayhaps","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1876.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"z2bal6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Could dark matter have a periodic table of its own nature? If it\u2019s evident that dark matter interacts with gravity and our realities forces in a similar way to normal matter, would it make sense that instead of a broad \u201cdark matter\u201d term, there would be individual pieces of dark matter making up these mass amounts?","c_root_id_A":"ixfj9fb","c_root_id_B":"ixflirs","created_at_utc_A":1669167168,"created_at_utc_B":1669168272,"score_A":7,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"If it interacts with itself strong enough, mayhaps","human_ref_B":"I don't think so, as dark matter doesn't form any sort of structure like regular matter Over galactic scales, matter forms disks because of the interaction between particles, but dark matter remains spherical afaik, so it doesn't even interact with itself through electromagnetism or any analog field I'm an engineer so, this ain't my field of expertise, take my answer as an appetizer while no specialists show up","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1104.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857} {"post_id":"rbgbe4","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is it possible to calculate how dice will fall? I don't know where else to ask this question but I'm quite bothered by it. I'm in no way good with physics so bear with me. So let's say we have some simulated environment where we could get all the data needed,what force was used when throwing dice what angle etc. Is it possible to calculate on which side it will fall?","c_root_id_A":"hnojj6m","c_root_id_B":"hnod841","created_at_utc_A":1638937805,"created_at_utc_B":1638934317,"score_A":19,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Dice rolling are a so-called a \"chaotic system\". Chaos in physics does not mean lack of physical laws, bur rather it means a system where a small change in initial conditions, will lead to greatly different outcomes in the evolution of the system and a very different \"final\" state after a certain time t has passed. This is the so-called butterfly effect that Lorentz talked about: a butterfly flapping it's wings rather than not (a small change in the initial conditions) will lead to the formation of a tornado in the future (a large difference of outcomes after a certain time). Still the system would be, in Newtonian physics, still deterministic, but the number of independent variables and the sensitivity of the system to change is so large that experimental prediction is often impossible with perfect accuracy. Some predictions can be made however... and that is how we predict the weather too. So in principle if you had a machine that would throw the dice in the exact same manner the same time and the effect of the air and table would also be the same, then you would always have the same outcome each time.","human_ref_B":"As people have said yes. The only truly random events that we know of are observables in a quantum system.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3488.0,"score_ratio":9.5} {"post_id":"rbgbe4","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is it possible to calculate how dice will fall? I don't know where else to ask this question but I'm quite bothered by it. I'm in no way good with physics so bear with me. So let's say we have some simulated environment where we could get all the data needed,what force was used when throwing dice what angle etc. Is it possible to calculate on which side it will fall?","c_root_id_A":"hnoivp0","c_root_id_B":"hnojj6m","created_at_utc_A":1638937425,"created_at_utc_B":1638937805,"score_A":2,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"In simulated systems, yes In real life, no","human_ref_B":"Dice rolling are a so-called a \"chaotic system\". Chaos in physics does not mean lack of physical laws, bur rather it means a system where a small change in initial conditions, will lead to greatly different outcomes in the evolution of the system and a very different \"final\" state after a certain time t has passed. This is the so-called butterfly effect that Lorentz talked about: a butterfly flapping it's wings rather than not (a small change in the initial conditions) will lead to the formation of a tornado in the future (a large difference of outcomes after a certain time). Still the system would be, in Newtonian physics, still deterministic, but the number of independent variables and the sensitivity of the system to change is so large that experimental prediction is often impossible with perfect accuracy. Some predictions can be made however... and that is how we predict the weather too. So in principle if you had a machine that would throw the dice in the exact same manner the same time and the effect of the air and table would also be the same, then you would always have the same outcome each time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":380.0,"score_ratio":9.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimh0g7","c_root_id_B":"giml701","created_at_utc_A":1610166353,"created_at_utc_B":1610168844,"score_A":9,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"*Physics* by Giancoli","human_ref_B":"If you're looking for more of a mathematical treatment of the physics, I wrote an article that listed all the techniques I used in college-level Physics I and II that should help you get started. A lot of people tend to learn a collection of random facts about a field of science, but this article would help get you to the point where you could solve some basic problems. To be clear, it's not a replacement for a full textbook, but it should help you to see general patterns from a textbook. I also wrote an article explaining entropy from an intuitive point of view (it's not disorder) and another article that explains how we can use entropy to derive the Ideal Gas Law, but the Ideal Gas Law article is a lot to take in if you're not comfortable with some advanced math or some basic thermodynamics concepts. That being said, I did everything I could to make it as easy to follow as possible. I can also recommend The Science Asylum, Andrew Dotson, Physics Explained, a different Physics Explained, 3blue1brown (notably his calculus, linear algebra, and DE series), Looking Glass Universe, and Zack Star. I'm only not putting Flammable Maths on here because he's more of a math guy who occasionally does physics and you'll find out about him through Andrew Dotson anyway. Some of these are more mathy than others (e.g. Andrew Dotson and both Physics Explained) and others are more about building intuition (e.g. The Science Asylum), but these are in general great channels. Once you get past basic classical mechanics (Physics I), basic electromagnetism (Physics II), and modern physics (Physics III, basically an overview of special relativity, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and solid-state physics), you'd want to look for a resource with a name like \"Math Methods for Physicists.\" One example is by Mary L. Boas. Anyway, this book will provide a lot of the more advanced math you'll need to deal with more complicated scenarios.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2491.0,"score_ratio":2.2222222222} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"giml701","c_root_id_B":"gimk1gq","created_at_utc_A":1610168844,"created_at_utc_B":1610168140,"score_A":20,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If you're looking for more of a mathematical treatment of the physics, I wrote an article that listed all the techniques I used in college-level Physics I and II that should help you get started. A lot of people tend to learn a collection of random facts about a field of science, but this article would help get you to the point where you could solve some basic problems. To be clear, it's not a replacement for a full textbook, but it should help you to see general patterns from a textbook. I also wrote an article explaining entropy from an intuitive point of view (it's not disorder) and another article that explains how we can use entropy to derive the Ideal Gas Law, but the Ideal Gas Law article is a lot to take in if you're not comfortable with some advanced math or some basic thermodynamics concepts. That being said, I did everything I could to make it as easy to follow as possible. I can also recommend The Science Asylum, Andrew Dotson, Physics Explained, a different Physics Explained, 3blue1brown (notably his calculus, linear algebra, and DE series), Looking Glass Universe, and Zack Star. I'm only not putting Flammable Maths on here because he's more of a math guy who occasionally does physics and you'll find out about him through Andrew Dotson anyway. Some of these are more mathy than others (e.g. Andrew Dotson and both Physics Explained) and others are more about building intuition (e.g. The Science Asylum), but these are in general great channels. Once you get past basic classical mechanics (Physics I), basic electromagnetism (Physics II), and modern physics (Physics III, basically an overview of special relativity, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and solid-state physics), you'd want to look for a resource with a name like \"Math Methods for Physicists.\" One example is by Mary L. Boas. Anyway, this book will provide a lot of the more advanced math you'll need to deal with more complicated scenarios.","human_ref_B":"For a lower-level introduction: Seven ideas that shook the universe, by Spielberg and Anderson For higher-level: Susskind\u2019s Theoretical Minimums and Feynman\u2019s Lectures.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":704.0,"score_ratio":10.0} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"giml701","c_root_id_B":"gimksg3","created_at_utc_A":1610168844,"created_at_utc_B":1610168594,"score_A":20,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If you're looking for more of a mathematical treatment of the physics, I wrote an article that listed all the techniques I used in college-level Physics I and II that should help you get started. A lot of people tend to learn a collection of random facts about a field of science, but this article would help get you to the point where you could solve some basic problems. To be clear, it's not a replacement for a full textbook, but it should help you to see general patterns from a textbook. I also wrote an article explaining entropy from an intuitive point of view (it's not disorder) and another article that explains how we can use entropy to derive the Ideal Gas Law, but the Ideal Gas Law article is a lot to take in if you're not comfortable with some advanced math or some basic thermodynamics concepts. That being said, I did everything I could to make it as easy to follow as possible. I can also recommend The Science Asylum, Andrew Dotson, Physics Explained, a different Physics Explained, 3blue1brown (notably his calculus, linear algebra, and DE series), Looking Glass Universe, and Zack Star. I'm only not putting Flammable Maths on here because he's more of a math guy who occasionally does physics and you'll find out about him through Andrew Dotson anyway. Some of these are more mathy than others (e.g. Andrew Dotson and both Physics Explained) and others are more about building intuition (e.g. The Science Asylum), but these are in general great channels. Once you get past basic classical mechanics (Physics I), basic electromagnetism (Physics II), and modern physics (Physics III, basically an overview of special relativity, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and solid-state physics), you'd want to look for a resource with a name like \"Math Methods for Physicists.\" One example is by Mary L. Boas. Anyway, this book will provide a lot of the more advanced math you'll need to deal with more complicated scenarios.","human_ref_B":"The book \u201cPhysics Matters\u201d by Trefil and Hazen. Other people are saying the Susskind books, and I highly recommend them, but I believe they are best for people like engineering majors who have studied calculus before and had some exposure to physics. The book I\u2019m recommending is for TOTAL NEWBS to gain conceptual understanding of introductory physics concepts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":250.0,"score_ratio":10.0} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"giml701","c_root_id_B":"giml3zq","created_at_utc_A":1610168844,"created_at_utc_B":1610168792,"score_A":20,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If you're looking for more of a mathematical treatment of the physics, I wrote an article that listed all the techniques I used in college-level Physics I and II that should help you get started. A lot of people tend to learn a collection of random facts about a field of science, but this article would help get you to the point where you could solve some basic problems. To be clear, it's not a replacement for a full textbook, but it should help you to see general patterns from a textbook. I also wrote an article explaining entropy from an intuitive point of view (it's not disorder) and another article that explains how we can use entropy to derive the Ideal Gas Law, but the Ideal Gas Law article is a lot to take in if you're not comfortable with some advanced math or some basic thermodynamics concepts. That being said, I did everything I could to make it as easy to follow as possible. I can also recommend The Science Asylum, Andrew Dotson, Physics Explained, a different Physics Explained, 3blue1brown (notably his calculus, linear algebra, and DE series), Looking Glass Universe, and Zack Star. I'm only not putting Flammable Maths on here because he's more of a math guy who occasionally does physics and you'll find out about him through Andrew Dotson anyway. Some of these are more mathy than others (e.g. Andrew Dotson and both Physics Explained) and others are more about building intuition (e.g. The Science Asylum), but these are in general great channels. Once you get past basic classical mechanics (Physics I), basic electromagnetism (Physics II), and modern physics (Physics III, basically an overview of special relativity, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and solid-state physics), you'd want to look for a resource with a name like \"Math Methods for Physicists.\" One example is by Mary L. Boas. Anyway, this book will provide a lot of the more advanced math you'll need to deal with more complicated scenarios.","human_ref_B":"I recommend using OCW Scholar for all their physics courses too","labels":1,"seconds_difference":52.0,"score_ratio":10.0} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimtk2p","c_root_id_B":"gimn4ix","created_at_utc_A":1610174671,"created_at_utc_B":1610170072,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I love the book Fundamentals of physics, the **10th edition** by Resnick.","human_ref_B":"There's a book called \"Seven Brief lessons on Physics\" by Carlo Rovelli, it's available on amazon. It's well written and explains alot of concepts verbally without all the complicated mathematics. Am in the final year of my Masters degree and still think it's an interesting read","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4599.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimr4nb","c_root_id_B":"gimtk2p","created_at_utc_A":1610172813,"created_at_utc_B":1610174671,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I learned all of my basic physics stuff from the series Six Ideas that Shaped Physics by Thomas Moore. It's great for learning fundamentals, but you will need to understand some calculus.","human_ref_B":"I love the book Fundamentals of physics, the **10th edition** by Resnick.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1858.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimtk2p","c_root_id_B":"gimk1gq","created_at_utc_A":1610174671,"created_at_utc_B":1610168140,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I love the book Fundamentals of physics, the **10th edition** by Resnick.","human_ref_B":"For a lower-level introduction: Seven ideas that shook the universe, by Spielberg and Anderson For higher-level: Susskind\u2019s Theoretical Minimums and Feynman\u2019s Lectures.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6531.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimtk2p","c_root_id_B":"gimksg3","created_at_utc_A":1610174671,"created_at_utc_B":1610168594,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I love the book Fundamentals of physics, the **10th edition** by Resnick.","human_ref_B":"The book \u201cPhysics Matters\u201d by Trefil and Hazen. Other people are saying the Susskind books, and I highly recommend them, but I believe they are best for people like engineering majors who have studied calculus before and had some exposure to physics. The book I\u2019m recommending is for TOTAL NEWBS to gain conceptual understanding of introductory physics concepts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6077.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimtk2p","c_root_id_B":"giml3zq","created_at_utc_A":1610174671,"created_at_utc_B":1610168792,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I love the book Fundamentals of physics, the **10th edition** by Resnick.","human_ref_B":"I recommend using OCW Scholar for all their physics courses too","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5879.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimk1gq","c_root_id_B":"gimn4ix","created_at_utc_A":1610168140,"created_at_utc_B":1610170072,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"For a lower-level introduction: Seven ideas that shook the universe, by Spielberg and Anderson For higher-level: Susskind\u2019s Theoretical Minimums and Feynman\u2019s Lectures.","human_ref_B":"There's a book called \"Seven Brief lessons on Physics\" by Carlo Rovelli, it's available on amazon. It's well written and explains alot of concepts verbally without all the complicated mathematics. Am in the final year of my Masters degree and still think it's an interesting read","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1932.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimksg3","c_root_id_B":"gimn4ix","created_at_utc_A":1610168594,"created_at_utc_B":1610170072,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The book \u201cPhysics Matters\u201d by Trefil and Hazen. Other people are saying the Susskind books, and I highly recommend them, but I believe they are best for people like engineering majors who have studied calculus before and had some exposure to physics. The book I\u2019m recommending is for TOTAL NEWBS to gain conceptual understanding of introductory physics concepts.","human_ref_B":"There's a book called \"Seven Brief lessons on Physics\" by Carlo Rovelli, it's available on amazon. It's well written and explains alot of concepts verbally without all the complicated mathematics. Am in the final year of my Masters degree and still think it's an interesting read","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1478.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimn4ix","c_root_id_B":"giml3zq","created_at_utc_A":1610170072,"created_at_utc_B":1610168792,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There's a book called \"Seven Brief lessons on Physics\" by Carlo Rovelli, it's available on amazon. It's well written and explains alot of concepts verbally without all the complicated mathematics. Am in the final year of my Masters degree and still think it's an interesting read","human_ref_B":"I recommend using OCW Scholar for all their physics courses too","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1280.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimr4nb","c_root_id_B":"gimk1gq","created_at_utc_A":1610172813,"created_at_utc_B":1610168140,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I learned all of my basic physics stuff from the series Six Ideas that Shaped Physics by Thomas Moore. It's great for learning fundamentals, but you will need to understand some calculus.","human_ref_B":"For a lower-level introduction: Seven ideas that shook the universe, by Spielberg and Anderson For higher-level: Susskind\u2019s Theoretical Minimums and Feynman\u2019s Lectures.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4673.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimr4nb","c_root_id_B":"gimksg3","created_at_utc_A":1610172813,"created_at_utc_B":1610168594,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I learned all of my basic physics stuff from the series Six Ideas that Shaped Physics by Thomas Moore. It's great for learning fundamentals, but you will need to understand some calculus.","human_ref_B":"The book \u201cPhysics Matters\u201d by Trefil and Hazen. Other people are saying the Susskind books, and I highly recommend them, but I believe they are best for people like engineering majors who have studied calculus before and had some exposure to physics. The book I\u2019m recommending is for TOTAL NEWBS to gain conceptual understanding of introductory physics concepts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4219.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"giml3zq","c_root_id_B":"gimr4nb","created_at_utc_A":1610168792,"created_at_utc_B":1610172813,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I recommend using OCW Scholar for all their physics courses too","human_ref_B":"I learned all of my basic physics stuff from the series Six Ideas that Shaped Physics by Thomas Moore. It's great for learning fundamentals, but you will need to understand some calculus.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4021.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimk1gq","c_root_id_B":"ginmshh","created_at_utc_A":1610168140,"created_at_utc_B":1610201544,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"For a lower-level introduction: Seven ideas that shook the universe, by Spielberg and Anderson For higher-level: Susskind\u2019s Theoretical Minimums and Feynman\u2019s Lectures.","human_ref_B":"Conceptual physics by Paul hewitt","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33404.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"ginmshh","c_root_id_B":"gimksg3","created_at_utc_A":1610201544,"created_at_utc_B":1610168594,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Conceptual physics by Paul hewitt","human_ref_B":"The book \u201cPhysics Matters\u201d by Trefil and Hazen. Other people are saying the Susskind books, and I highly recommend them, but I believe they are best for people like engineering majors who have studied calculus before and had some exposure to physics. The book I\u2019m recommending is for TOTAL NEWBS to gain conceptual understanding of introductory physics concepts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32950.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"ginmshh","c_root_id_B":"giml3zq","created_at_utc_A":1610201544,"created_at_utc_B":1610168792,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Conceptual physics by Paul hewitt","human_ref_B":"I recommend using OCW Scholar for all their physics courses too","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32752.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"ginmshh","c_root_id_B":"gimtn0w","created_at_utc_A":1610201544,"created_at_utc_B":1610174736,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Conceptual physics by Paul hewitt","human_ref_B":"Your assigned textbook will teach you all you need to know: what you need to do is brush up on your math. You need to know algebra and trigonometry cold before you start. Find some practice problems and do them without consulting an answer key. Most people who do poorly in physics actually are doing poorly at math while in physics class:","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26808.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gimvb5t","c_root_id_B":"ginmshh","created_at_utc_A":1610176098,"created_at_utc_B":1610201544,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Either Resnick and Halliday or Taylor classical Mechanics (if You know some maths)","human_ref_B":"Conceptual physics by Paul hewitt","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25446.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gin1b8b","c_root_id_B":"ginmshh","created_at_utc_A":1610181655,"created_at_utc_B":1610201544,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Fundamentals of physics by Halliday, Resnick and Walker. Specially the extended 5th Edition is so great and it gives a real life puzzle at the start of a chapter and through it, it will take you to the journey to solve that puzzle! I don't know about other editions though. Note that it's not physics-I and physics-II by the same authors. They are wonderful too but more suitable for first year undergrad. Once you finish it, then you may go for the Feynman's lectures on physics. The other recommendations here are also great. Get ready for a breathtaking quest to unravel the mysteries of the universe! Good luck.","human_ref_B":"Conceptual physics by Paul hewitt","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19889.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ktit7x","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"College student new to physics What\u2019s the best book to read for someone with ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of physics but who is super interested in starting to learn it? Like a simplified guide to the basics so that I have some foundation before learning more. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"ginmshh","c_root_id_B":"ginmpdg","created_at_utc_A":1610201544,"created_at_utc_B":1610201485,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Conceptual physics by Paul hewitt","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/m.youtube.com\/watch?v=NNR-sd58p-U&list=PLtlK8hGD_R657PL9VlQhDQb_5p1zaqrWk&index=4","labels":1,"seconds_difference":59.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"q2x7yg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Is it generally better to understand physics conceptually or mathematically first? Conceptually meaning you understand the mechanics & how physics works in the real world (think qualitative) and layer in the mathematics afterwards. Mathematically meaning you try to cover the mathematical background for a concept - the equations, derivations of these equations - first, and then try to look at it from a conceptual point of view. It could be based on personal preference but I\u2019m not sure about it.","c_root_id_A":"hfoaiag","c_root_id_B":"hfodzvv","created_at_utc_A":1633568417,"created_at_utc_B":1633570049,"score_A":13,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"It's definitely personal. And sometimes topic specific. Trying to conceptually understand some quantum topics can be harder than doing the math and building a concept around it.","human_ref_B":"Both at the same time. The two are inseparable. It\u2019s a little like asking \u201cshould I learn to walk with my left foot first or my right foot?\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1632.0,"score_ratio":5.6923076923} {"post_id":"q2x7yg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Is it generally better to understand physics conceptually or mathematically first? Conceptually meaning you understand the mechanics & how physics works in the real world (think qualitative) and layer in the mathematics afterwards. Mathematically meaning you try to cover the mathematical background for a concept - the equations, derivations of these equations - first, and then try to look at it from a conceptual point of view. It could be based on personal preference but I\u2019m not sure about it.","c_root_id_A":"hfodzvv","c_root_id_B":"hfo7b8h","created_at_utc_A":1633570049,"created_at_utc_B":1633566915,"score_A":74,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Both at the same time. The two are inseparable. It\u2019s a little like asking \u201cshould I learn to walk with my left foot first or my right foot?\u201d","human_ref_B":"Personally I find it\u2019s better to figure it out conceptually first unless it\u2019s something where the math is easier to make sense of than the concept like special relativity","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3134.0,"score_ratio":18.5} {"post_id":"q2x7yg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Is it generally better to understand physics conceptually or mathematically first? Conceptually meaning you understand the mechanics & how physics works in the real world (think qualitative) and layer in the mathematics afterwards. Mathematically meaning you try to cover the mathematical background for a concept - the equations, derivations of these equations - first, and then try to look at it from a conceptual point of view. It could be based on personal preference but I\u2019m not sure about it.","c_root_id_A":"hfoex3b","c_root_id_B":"hfoaiag","created_at_utc_A":1633570480,"created_at_utc_B":1633568417,"score_A":58,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Either way is fine. But after you understand the math, you may realize that the conceptual understanding you had was paper thin.","human_ref_B":"It's definitely personal. And sometimes topic specific. Trying to conceptually understand some quantum topics can be harder than doing the math and building a concept around it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2063.0,"score_ratio":4.4615384615} {"post_id":"q2x7yg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Is it generally better to understand physics conceptually or mathematically first? Conceptually meaning you understand the mechanics & how physics works in the real world (think qualitative) and layer in the mathematics afterwards. Mathematically meaning you try to cover the mathematical background for a concept - the equations, derivations of these equations - first, and then try to look at it from a conceptual point of view. It could be based on personal preference but I\u2019m not sure about it.","c_root_id_A":"hfo7b8h","c_root_id_B":"hfoex3b","created_at_utc_A":1633566915,"created_at_utc_B":1633570480,"score_A":4,"score_B":58,"human_ref_A":"Personally I find it\u2019s better to figure it out conceptually first unless it\u2019s something where the math is easier to make sense of than the concept like special relativity","human_ref_B":"Either way is fine. But after you understand the math, you may realize that the conceptual understanding you had was paper thin.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3565.0,"score_ratio":14.5} {"post_id":"q2x7yg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Is it generally better to understand physics conceptually or mathematically first? Conceptually meaning you understand the mechanics & how physics works in the real world (think qualitative) and layer in the mathematics afterwards. Mathematically meaning you try to cover the mathematical background for a concept - the equations, derivations of these equations - first, and then try to look at it from a conceptual point of view. It could be based on personal preference but I\u2019m not sure about it.","c_root_id_A":"hfo7b8h","c_root_id_B":"hfoaiag","created_at_utc_A":1633566915,"created_at_utc_B":1633568417,"score_A":4,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Personally I find it\u2019s better to figure it out conceptually first unless it\u2019s something where the math is easier to make sense of than the concept like special relativity","human_ref_B":"It's definitely personal. And sometimes topic specific. Trying to conceptually understand some quantum topics can be harder than doing the math and building a concept around it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1502.0,"score_ratio":3.25} {"post_id":"q2x7yg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Is it generally better to understand physics conceptually or mathematically first? Conceptually meaning you understand the mechanics & how physics works in the real world (think qualitative) and layer in the mathematics afterwards. Mathematically meaning you try to cover the mathematical background for a concept - the equations, derivations of these equations - first, and then try to look at it from a conceptual point of view. It could be based on personal preference but I\u2019m not sure about it.","c_root_id_A":"hfp7ohk","c_root_id_B":"hfo7b8h","created_at_utc_A":1633587563,"created_at_utc_B":1633566915,"score_A":11,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In my opinion , you should better get used to understanding them mathematically, because at a certain point , a lot of things can't really be conceptually explained (in advanced qm for example)","human_ref_B":"Personally I find it\u2019s better to figure it out conceptually first unless it\u2019s something where the math is easier to make sense of than the concept like special relativity","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20648.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"q2x7yg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Is it generally better to understand physics conceptually or mathematically first? Conceptually meaning you understand the mechanics & how physics works in the real world (think qualitative) and layer in the mathematics afterwards. Mathematically meaning you try to cover the mathematical background for a concept - the equations, derivations of these equations - first, and then try to look at it from a conceptual point of view. It could be based on personal preference but I\u2019m not sure about it.","c_root_id_A":"hfp7ohk","c_root_id_B":"hfose8v","created_at_utc_A":1633587563,"created_at_utc_B":1633577604,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In my opinion , you should better get used to understanding them mathematically, because at a certain point , a lot of things can't really be conceptually explained (in advanced qm for example)","human_ref_B":"Personally, I prefer to first gain a conceptual understanding, but both are ultimately necessary. A conceptual basis though will allow me to have more intuition in the application of the mathematics. Eventually the mathematics will then deepen my understanding and allow for even greater intuition, creating a feedback loop.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9959.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"q2x7yg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Is it generally better to understand physics conceptually or mathematically first? Conceptually meaning you understand the mechanics & how physics works in the real world (think qualitative) and layer in the mathematics afterwards. Mathematically meaning you try to cover the mathematical background for a concept - the equations, derivations of these equations - first, and then try to look at it from a conceptual point of view. It could be based on personal preference but I\u2019m not sure about it.","c_root_id_A":"hfp7ohk","c_root_id_B":"hfot1bc","created_at_utc_A":1633587563,"created_at_utc_B":1633577967,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In my opinion , you should better get used to understanding them mathematically, because at a certain point , a lot of things can't really be conceptually explained (in advanced qm for example)","human_ref_B":"If you're trying to pass class, Mathematics matters most. You can memorize steps to solve problems can't memorize how to mathematically solve shit correctly in good amount of time, plus you'll understand a problem eventually if you do enough of them with a complete understanding of the math. If you're looking to get a good understanding about a subject to solve a problem with more real life implications the math isn't as important sometimes all you need is to understand something so you know how to proceed to the next step. Both are important yes but as someone who was a wiz at conceptual physics and lackluster at mathematical, my grades are proof math comes first. Plus a teacher once told me it's way easier to understand a subject when you arent getting muddled with the math. He said when he went to college way less students struggled with math concepts than now so understanding physics was just about physics not about the math. In other words the math is one roadblock you will have to truly understanding it and without knowing it your making your life harder. Not saying it's possible I did it, but my life was hell for a while haha. One thing conceptual thinking made me excel in was labs, being able to think through are my wrong results correct or did I measure then incorrectly\/break laws of physics by doing this and assuming this. Best of luck to you!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9596.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j189rw8","c_root_id_B":"j18afiv","created_at_utc_A":1671710134,"created_at_utc_B":1671710594,"score_A":7,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"Reverse answer: Are they thinking \"Bang=Explosion\"? Do they picture a mushroom cloud with expanding smoke? Is smoke=universe and air=\\_\\_\\_ ? Is infinity intuitive? Have they ever seen something expand without taking up more space? ​ Edit: More seriously, some analogies make everything finite like the balloon one (which I think can work if explained well), but I suspect people are still confused by this because there is still a \"center\" (at the middle of inner void) and it expands \"into\" the surrounding air. The others with 2d grids drawn differently are confusing because infinite objects are not intuitive, especially if you are untrained in or, perhaps more commonly, unaware of such things.","human_ref_B":"Because common language offers little to no concepts for understanding. There, anything that is expanding is expanding into (space). However, the expansion of space itself cannot be matched to any human experience.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":460.0,"score_ratio":6.2857142857} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j18cis6","c_root_id_B":"j18kw7v","created_at_utc_A":1671711995,"created_at_utc_B":1671716794,"score_A":10,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Well... I mean... What are you drawing the 2D grid on, in the first place?!","human_ref_B":"I bet one of the places where people have issues is limits that trend towards something being infinite, and also trying to make singularities continuous with the rest of what's going on. For example, I feel like a better way to think of the initial, high-density state of an infinite universe in the basic Big Bang model as a limit thing: you can take any two objects in an infinite universe, backtrack towards t=0, and, no matter how far away they are now, there's a time past the Big Bang when they\\* were arbitrarily close to each other. And to break it off at the singularity: it's a \"the math breaks here\" marker, not a physical object. But, the classic way of talking about this is \"infinitely dense single point, then infinite universe.\" It adds in the singularity in a way that makes it seem like a physical thing, and the intuitive way to get from \"single point\" to \"infinite universe\" goes through \"finite but non-zero\" in a way that makes things seem like they have a center and an edge. ​ \\*Or, more accurately, whatever ended up becoming them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4799.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j18kw7v","c_root_id_B":"j189rw8","created_at_utc_A":1671716794,"created_at_utc_B":1671710134,"score_A":18,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I bet one of the places where people have issues is limits that trend towards something being infinite, and also trying to make singularities continuous with the rest of what's going on. For example, I feel like a better way to think of the initial, high-density state of an infinite universe in the basic Big Bang model as a limit thing: you can take any two objects in an infinite universe, backtrack towards t=0, and, no matter how far away they are now, there's a time past the Big Bang when they\\* were arbitrarily close to each other. And to break it off at the singularity: it's a \"the math breaks here\" marker, not a physical object. But, the classic way of talking about this is \"infinitely dense single point, then infinite universe.\" It adds in the singularity in a way that makes it seem like a physical thing, and the intuitive way to get from \"single point\" to \"infinite universe\" goes through \"finite but non-zero\" in a way that makes things seem like they have a center and an edge. ​ \\*Or, more accurately, whatever ended up becoming them.","human_ref_B":"Reverse answer: Are they thinking \"Bang=Explosion\"? Do they picture a mushroom cloud with expanding smoke? Is smoke=universe and air=\\_\\_\\_ ? Is infinity intuitive? Have they ever seen something expand without taking up more space? ​ Edit: More seriously, some analogies make everything finite like the balloon one (which I think can work if explained well), but I suspect people are still confused by this because there is still a \"center\" (at the middle of inner void) and it expands \"into\" the surrounding air. The others with 2d grids drawn differently are confusing because infinite objects are not intuitive, especially if you are untrained in or, perhaps more commonly, unaware of such things.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6660.0,"score_ratio":2.5714285714} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j18kw7v","c_root_id_B":"j18ijvd","created_at_utc_A":1671716794,"created_at_utc_B":1671715573,"score_A":18,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I bet one of the places where people have issues is limits that trend towards something being infinite, and also trying to make singularities continuous with the rest of what's going on. For example, I feel like a better way to think of the initial, high-density state of an infinite universe in the basic Big Bang model as a limit thing: you can take any two objects in an infinite universe, backtrack towards t=0, and, no matter how far away they are now, there's a time past the Big Bang when they\\* were arbitrarily close to each other. And to break it off at the singularity: it's a \"the math breaks here\" marker, not a physical object. But, the classic way of talking about this is \"infinitely dense single point, then infinite universe.\" It adds in the singularity in a way that makes it seem like a physical thing, and the intuitive way to get from \"single point\" to \"infinite universe\" goes through \"finite but non-zero\" in a way that makes things seem like they have a center and an edge. ​ \\*Or, more accurately, whatever ended up becoming them.","human_ref_B":"One of the reasons people ask questions like that is because science can allow for situations like that to exist. It just depends on how some people wanna tackle the problem of figuring out where we are, versus when we were.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1221.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j18cis6","c_root_id_B":"j19656d","created_at_utc_A":1671711995,"created_at_utc_B":1671726018,"score_A":10,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Well... I mean... What are you drawing the 2D grid on, in the first place?!","human_ref_B":"Intuition. If the universe is expanding from the big bang, then it must be expanding from somewhere. Basically our monkey brains aren't equipped to conceptualise cosmological phenomenon.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14023.0,"score_ratio":1.3} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j19656d","c_root_id_B":"j18n4oh","created_at_utc_A":1671726018,"created_at_utc_B":1671717902,"score_A":13,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Intuition. If the universe is expanding from the big bang, then it must be expanding from somewhere. Basically our monkey brains aren't equipped to conceptualise cosmological phenomenon.","human_ref_B":"For me I think it was diagrams like this, the balloon analogy and as another commenter said, the fact that bang=explosion.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8116.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j189rw8","c_root_id_B":"j19656d","created_at_utc_A":1671710134,"created_at_utc_B":1671726018,"score_A":7,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Reverse answer: Are they thinking \"Bang=Explosion\"? Do they picture a mushroom cloud with expanding smoke? Is smoke=universe and air=\\_\\_\\_ ? Is infinity intuitive? Have they ever seen something expand without taking up more space? ​ Edit: More seriously, some analogies make everything finite like the balloon one (which I think can work if explained well), but I suspect people are still confused by this because there is still a \"center\" (at the middle of inner void) and it expands \"into\" the surrounding air. The others with 2d grids drawn differently are confusing because infinite objects are not intuitive, especially if you are untrained in or, perhaps more commonly, unaware of such things.","human_ref_B":"Intuition. If the universe is expanding from the big bang, then it must be expanding from somewhere. Basically our monkey brains aren't equipped to conceptualise cosmological phenomenon.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15884.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j19656d","c_root_id_B":"j18r8kx","created_at_utc_A":1671726018,"created_at_utc_B":1671719821,"score_A":13,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Intuition. If the universe is expanding from the big bang, then it must be expanding from somewhere. Basically our monkey brains aren't equipped to conceptualise cosmological phenomenon.","human_ref_B":"It is inevitable really that if you tell someone the Universe is expanding they will assume there is a centre to the expansion. If you scale an object against a fixed background space you first fix an origin and then scale the displacement vector from the origin of each point in that object. The origin is the centre of expansion. In fact you can describe cosmological expansion in terms of a fixed centre of expansion by using normal coordinates. This is not a very natural way of describing space though because it doesn't reflect the observations of observers who are far from the origin and you can find (spatially) isotropic normal coordinates at each spacetime event.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6197.0,"score_ratio":3.25} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j19656d","c_root_id_B":"j18ijvd","created_at_utc_A":1671726018,"created_at_utc_B":1671715573,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Intuition. If the universe is expanding from the big bang, then it must be expanding from somewhere. Basically our monkey brains aren't equipped to conceptualise cosmological phenomenon.","human_ref_B":"One of the reasons people ask questions like that is because science can allow for situations like that to exist. It just depends on how some people wanna tackle the problem of figuring out where we are, versus when we were.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10445.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j189rw8","c_root_id_B":"j18cis6","created_at_utc_A":1671710134,"created_at_utc_B":1671711995,"score_A":7,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Reverse answer: Are they thinking \"Bang=Explosion\"? Do they picture a mushroom cloud with expanding smoke? Is smoke=universe and air=\\_\\_\\_ ? Is infinity intuitive? Have they ever seen something expand without taking up more space? ​ Edit: More seriously, some analogies make everything finite like the balloon one (which I think can work if explained well), but I suspect people are still confused by this because there is still a \"center\" (at the middle of inner void) and it expands \"into\" the surrounding air. The others with 2d grids drawn differently are confusing because infinite objects are not intuitive, especially if you are untrained in or, perhaps more commonly, unaware of such things.","human_ref_B":"Well... I mean... What are you drawing the 2D grid on, in the first place?!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1861.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j18ijvd","c_root_id_B":"j18n4oh","created_at_utc_A":1671715573,"created_at_utc_B":1671717902,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"One of the reasons people ask questions like that is because science can allow for situations like that to exist. It just depends on how some people wanna tackle the problem of figuring out where we are, versus when we were.","human_ref_B":"For me I think it was diagrams like this, the balloon analogy and as another commenter said, the fact that bang=explosion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2329.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j1ah98f","c_root_id_B":"j18r8kx","created_at_utc_A":1671744450,"created_at_utc_B":1671719821,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"\"Most people would intuitively see that the grid doesn't need to expand into anything but itself\" No. Most people would see that you are expanding the grid onto more paper. Or that you are expanding the grid across the table. Or, more basically, into space. When you expand a grid, they see the grid as expanding INTO space. It's not producing something from nothing, it's taking up space that once had nothing. That's how we naturally perceive anything that expands. The idea of there being literally nothing, and then immediately there becoming something, that's what doesn't make sense to the average person.","human_ref_B":"It is inevitable really that if you tell someone the Universe is expanding they will assume there is a centre to the expansion. If you scale an object against a fixed background space you first fix an origin and then scale the displacement vector from the origin of each point in that object. The origin is the centre of expansion. In fact you can describe cosmological expansion in terms of a fixed centre of expansion by using normal coordinates. This is not a very natural way of describing space though because it doesn't reflect the observations of observers who are far from the origin and you can find (spatially) isotropic normal coordinates at each spacetime event.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24629.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j18ijvd","c_root_id_B":"j1ah98f","created_at_utc_A":1671715573,"created_at_utc_B":1671744450,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"One of the reasons people ask questions like that is because science can allow for situations like that to exist. It just depends on how some people wanna tackle the problem of figuring out where we are, versus when we were.","human_ref_B":"\"Most people would intuitively see that the grid doesn't need to expand into anything but itself\" No. Most people would see that you are expanding the grid onto more paper. Or that you are expanding the grid across the table. Or, more basically, into space. When you expand a grid, they see the grid as expanding INTO space. It's not producing something from nothing, it's taking up space that once had nothing. That's how we naturally perceive anything that expands. The idea of there being literally nothing, and then immediately there becoming something, that's what doesn't make sense to the average person.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28877.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j1affdg","c_root_id_B":"j1ah98f","created_at_utc_A":1671743714,"created_at_utc_B":1671744450,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Honestly? I think the term \"Big Bang\" is largely at fault here. Bang, specifically. Explosions, as we experience them, originate from a \"point.\" I think laypeople are absolutely capable of understanding infinity--it takes explaining, as any concept does, but it's not especially weird. Doesn't even come close to the funkiness of quantum physics. I don't want to knock the term entirely. I think it's extremely useful at helping to imagine the environment and the rough \"timeline\" that happens--the initial expansion is extreme (perhaps a few orders of magnitude greater than real explosions, but it gets the idea across), with the expansion fading rapidly as the volume increases. And frankly, it was a great term that helped people get into the idea. It was eye-catching and turned heads. But it's also a bit out of date and maybe leads people to wrong ideas of what actually happened. What I'm saying, I guess, is the term \"Big Bang\" is the physics equivalent of *Jurassic Park*. It did us a lot of good, but it might be time to move beyond it.","human_ref_B":"\"Most people would intuitively see that the grid doesn't need to expand into anything but itself\" No. Most people would see that you are expanding the grid onto more paper. Or that you are expanding the grid across the table. Or, more basically, into space. When you expand a grid, they see the grid as expanding INTO space. It's not producing something from nothing, it's taking up space that once had nothing. That's how we naturally perceive anything that expands. The idea of there being literally nothing, and then immediately there becoming something, that's what doesn't make sense to the average person.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":736.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j18r8kx","c_root_id_B":"j18ijvd","created_at_utc_A":1671719821,"created_at_utc_B":1671715573,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It is inevitable really that if you tell someone the Universe is expanding they will assume there is a centre to the expansion. If you scale an object against a fixed background space you first fix an origin and then scale the displacement vector from the origin of each point in that object. The origin is the centre of expansion. In fact you can describe cosmological expansion in terms of a fixed centre of expansion by using normal coordinates. This is not a very natural way of describing space though because it doesn't reflect the observations of observers who are far from the origin and you can find (spatially) isotropic normal coordinates at each spacetime event.","human_ref_B":"One of the reasons people ask questions like that is because science can allow for situations like that to exist. It just depends on how some people wanna tackle the problem of figuring out where we are, versus when we were.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4248.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j18ijvd","c_root_id_B":"j1b9ql1","created_at_utc_A":1671715573,"created_at_utc_B":1671756823,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"One of the reasons people ask questions like that is because science can allow for situations like that to exist. It just depends on how some people wanna tackle the problem of figuring out where we are, versus when we were.","human_ref_B":"The problem is that people use what they know as a basis for understanding things they don't. Cosmology is so far divorced from anything we can experience in our day to day lives that it is essentially an abstract concept to most people and not easy to comprehend, which is why any metaphor used to try and explain it falls apart under serious scrutiny.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":41250.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zsk7i6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reverse question: why do students and lay people keep thinking the Big Bang happened at some specific location in space? What causes this misconception, and how do we prevent it? Basically, it confuses me that there is confusion about this, so I suspect there is a bad explanation, description or cultural depiction going around which I never encountered. Likewise with the \"what is it expanding into?\" question. If I draw an infinite grid on a 2D plane and expand the squares the grid is made of, most people would intuitively see that there is no need for the grid to expand \"into\" anything other than itself.","c_root_id_A":"j1b9ql1","c_root_id_B":"j1affdg","created_at_utc_A":1671756823,"created_at_utc_B":1671743714,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The problem is that people use what they know as a basis for understanding things they don't. Cosmology is so far divorced from anything we can experience in our day to day lives that it is essentially an abstract concept to most people and not easy to comprehend, which is why any metaphor used to try and explain it falls apart under serious scrutiny.","human_ref_B":"Honestly? I think the term \"Big Bang\" is largely at fault here. Bang, specifically. Explosions, as we experience them, originate from a \"point.\" I think laypeople are absolutely capable of understanding infinity--it takes explaining, as any concept does, but it's not especially weird. Doesn't even come close to the funkiness of quantum physics. I don't want to knock the term entirely. I think it's extremely useful at helping to imagine the environment and the rough \"timeline\" that happens--the initial expansion is extreme (perhaps a few orders of magnitude greater than real explosions, but it gets the idea across), with the expansion fading rapidly as the volume increases. And frankly, it was a great term that helped people get into the idea. It was eye-catching and turned heads. But it's also a bit out of date and maybe leads people to wrong ideas of what actually happened. What I'm saying, I guess, is the term \"Big Bang\" is the physics equivalent of *Jurassic Park*. It did us a lot of good, but it might be time to move beyond it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13109.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"cawzp2","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Why is electric charge of proton exactly the same value (but opposite sign) as the charge of an electron? And not some other arbitrary value.","c_root_id_A":"etbo2js","c_root_id_B":"etbo0ap","created_at_utc_A":1562653962,"created_at_utc_B":1562653885,"score_A":31,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Well, that's the mystery. You could say it's because charge is quantized (it's easy to have -1 oppose +1), but that answer only deflects to another question, \"Why is charge quantized?\". The textbook answer for that is *if* you have magnetic monopoles, that forces quantization of charges ( https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Magnetic\\_monopole#Dirac's\\_quantization ). But this is still an open question, because we haven't (reproducibly) found magnetic monopoles yet.","human_ref_B":"There\u2019s really no answer other than experimental evidence. If we assume that neutrons are neutral, then it has to be true because of beta decay of a neutron, but there\u2019s not really any reason to assume that besides experimental data. There\u2019s good theoretical evidence for charge quantization, but that also doesn\u2019t explain why these charges should be equal and opposite.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":77.0,"score_ratio":1.2916666667} {"post_id":"cawzp2","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Why is electric charge of proton exactly the same value (but opposite sign) as the charge of an electron? And not some other arbitrary value.","c_root_id_A":"etbufg6","c_root_id_B":"etbo0ap","created_at_utc_A":1562662355,"created_at_utc_B":1562653885,"score_A":27,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"A boring answer is the anthropic principle. If electrons and protons had different charge, we wouldn't get stable atoms, and thus no humans to ask the question. Otherwise it's really just an experimental fact. You can write down many other particle models where this agreement is not there, even if you still have electromagnetism and charge quantization. Of course there could be a deep theoretical reason, but need don't know it right now.","human_ref_B":"There\u2019s really no answer other than experimental evidence. If we assume that neutrons are neutral, then it has to be true because of beta decay of a neutron, but there\u2019s not really any reason to assume that besides experimental data. There\u2019s good theoretical evidence for charge quantization, but that also doesn\u2019t explain why these charges should be equal and opposite.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8470.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"cawzp2","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Why is electric charge of proton exactly the same value (but opposite sign) as the charge of an electron? And not some other arbitrary value.","c_root_id_A":"etbufg6","c_root_id_B":"etbopbg","created_at_utc_A":1562662355,"created_at_utc_B":1562654722,"score_A":27,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"A boring answer is the anthropic principle. If electrons and protons had different charge, we wouldn't get stable atoms, and thus no humans to ask the question. Otherwise it's really just an experimental fact. You can write down many other particle models where this agreement is not there, even if you still have electromagnetism and charge quantization. Of course there could be a deep theoretical reason, but need don't know it right now.","human_ref_B":"There's an argument that anomaly cancellation#Anomaly_cancellation) naturally leads to protons having the same magnitude of charge as electrons. This isn't completely fool-proof since there are assumptions one has to make, but it's interesting still.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7633.0,"score_ratio":3.8571428571} {"post_id":"zmoyxk","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"So basically if an object reflects some amount of light then they get a color, similarly if it reflects all light it appears in white color or if it absorbs all light it becomes black, then why do mirrors not be in white instead they show your reflection","c_root_id_A":"j0cygs1","c_root_id_B":"j0cwlc3","created_at_utc_A":1671131552,"created_at_utc_B":1671130826,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You can think of a mirror as a highly polished white object. It's not exactly true, but that's a big part of it. A white piece of paper won't reflect an image because on the microscopic scale, it's very bumpy and scatters incoming light in all directions. Mirrors do a better job of reflecting light at the same incident angle to the overall surface, allowing an image to form. Light tends to reflect this way better at more extreme angles. Try this with a table top: It might not reflect an image at all, however, if you bring your eye down to the level of the edge of the table, so you are looking at the table surface at an extremely low angle, you should see a reflected image of whatever is beyond the table.","human_ref_B":"Both mirrors and white paper reflect the whole visible spectrum of light but the mirror reflects the light at the same angle as the light hits it whereas the white paper scatters the light.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":726.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"zmoyxk","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"So basically if an object reflects some amount of light then they get a color, similarly if it reflects all light it appears in white color or if it absorbs all light it becomes black, then why do mirrors not be in white instead they show your reflection","c_root_id_A":"j0d1yee","c_root_id_B":"j0cwlc3","created_at_utc_A":1671132919,"created_at_utc_B":1671130826,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Fun fact to add to existing answers, mirrors do not perfectly reflect all light equally. They actually peak in the green range. After one reflection, such a small amount of light is absorbed that you can't tell the difference. But if you reflect over and over and over again, the fact that it absorbs less green than other wavelengths begins to build up and leave behind a green hue to everything. If you put two mirrors against each other so you can see several of the reflections, you will notice that the further down the rabbit hole you look, the greener it gets","human_ref_B":"Both mirrors and white paper reflect the whole visible spectrum of light but the mirror reflects the light at the same angle as the light hits it whereas the white paper scatters the light.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2093.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"zss9qa","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Why aren\u2019t there big clumps of neutrons scattered around the universe? There\u2019s no electromagnetic repulsion and a lot of strong force. Why aren\u2019t there just big clumps of free neutrons floating around? Do they tend to attract protons and form atoms? Do they become unstable for some other reason? Or are they just too small for \u201cbig clumps\u201d to be meaningful?","c_root_id_A":"j19mmfd","c_root_id_B":"j19s0fd","created_at_utc_A":1671732389,"created_at_utc_B":1671734467,"score_A":9,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Beta decay. If you get too many that'll balance it out. Without some binding force, like the gravity of a neutron star, they aren't stable. Those clumps just won't last very long.","human_ref_B":"Two neutrons form an unstable state that is not bound, and that's the precursor to any large neutron clumps, so you don't see neutrons lying around.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2078.0,"score_ratio":1.8888888889} {"post_id":"zss9qa","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Why aren\u2019t there big clumps of neutrons scattered around the universe? There\u2019s no electromagnetic repulsion and a lot of strong force. Why aren\u2019t there just big clumps of free neutrons floating around? Do they tend to attract protons and form atoms? Do they become unstable for some other reason? Or are they just too small for \u201cbig clumps\u201d to be meaningful?","c_root_id_A":"j19n01w","c_root_id_B":"j19s0fd","created_at_utc_A":1671732535,"created_at_utc_B":1671734467,"score_A":6,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Neutronium#In_the_periodic_table","human_ref_B":"Two neutrons form an unstable state that is not bound, and that's the precursor to any large neutron clumps, so you don't see neutrons lying around.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1932.0,"score_ratio":2.8333333333} {"post_id":"di7x5q","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Has there been more or less evidence for WIMPs as dark matter candidates in the last decade? I remember learning years ago that weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) were the leading dark matter candidates. What are their prospects now? And if it's looking grim what's the next best candidate?","c_root_id_A":"f3tyic4","c_root_id_B":"f3uewka","created_at_utc_A":1571149084,"created_at_utc_B":1571158859,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The issue of WIMPs is that it isn't one specific particle we have to look for. Observations of dark matter and its effect on the Universe suggest WIMPS, but there are many different particles with many different properties that could fit the bill. Searching for all these different particles is difficult - we can rule out certain particles but there hasn't been any reliable detection, directly or indirectly of a WIMP that constitutes all of dark matter. That being said, WIMPs are still the preferred candidate.","human_ref_B":"WIMP's used to be everyone's favorite candidate but there have been a lot of searches for them with no results in the last 20ish years. They are still a viable candidate but people are starting to consider a much more broad range of dark matter candidates than before. I would say the next most favored alternative is axions which are very light particles invented to solve something called the strong-CP problem and also can be dark matter. Because they are so light (much much lighter than protons and electrons) you can't look for them in the same way you look for WIMP's and new dedicated axion searches are being proposed and starting to have first results.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9775.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"di7x5q","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Has there been more or less evidence for WIMPs as dark matter candidates in the last decade? I remember learning years ago that weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) were the leading dark matter candidates. What are their prospects now? And if it's looking grim what's the next best candidate?","c_root_id_A":"f3tyic4","c_root_id_B":"f3txtjp","created_at_utc_A":1571149084,"created_at_utc_B":1571148643,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The issue of WIMPs is that it isn't one specific particle we have to look for. Observations of dark matter and its effect on the Universe suggest WIMPS, but there are many different particles with many different properties that could fit the bill. Searching for all these different particles is difficult - we can rule out certain particles but there hasn't been any reliable detection, directly or indirectly of a WIMP that constitutes all of dark matter. That being said, WIMPs are still the preferred candidate.","human_ref_B":"There's a lot of experiments searching for these still but i remember the exclusion plots for the wimp cross section are getting incredibly large now!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":441.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"di7x5q","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Has there been more or less evidence for WIMPs as dark matter candidates in the last decade? I remember learning years ago that weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) were the leading dark matter candidates. What are their prospects now? And if it's looking grim what's the next best candidate?","c_root_id_A":"f3uewka","c_root_id_B":"f3txtjp","created_at_utc_A":1571158859,"created_at_utc_B":1571148643,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"WIMP's used to be everyone's favorite candidate but there have been a lot of searches for them with no results in the last 20ish years. They are still a viable candidate but people are starting to consider a much more broad range of dark matter candidates than before. I would say the next most favored alternative is axions which are very light particles invented to solve something called the strong-CP problem and also can be dark matter. Because they are so light (much much lighter than protons and electrons) you can't look for them in the same way you look for WIMP's and new dedicated axion searches are being proposed and starting to have first results.","human_ref_B":"There's a lot of experiments searching for these still but i remember the exclusion plots for the wimp cross section are getting incredibly large now!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10216.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"cx8zg6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why are dark energy, dark matter, and normal matter estimates so close to the normal distribution standard deviations? Is there any (even theoretical) explanation for why the dark energy, dark matter, and normal matter estimates are very close to the normal distribution standard deviations? * One sigma percent: 68.27% * Estimated dark energy percent: 68.3% * Two sigma - one sigma: 27.2% * Estimated dark matter percent: 26.8% * 100% - two sigma: 4.6% * Estimated normal matter percent: 4.8% I've been searching and haven't seen the comparison drawn elsewhere. I'm mostly curious if any aspects of the standard model makes sense of why matter distributions would overlay so closely with standard deviations of the normal distribution. (Note, the dark energy estimate is from the 2018 Plank results, and the other two were from 2013 estimates - all from the Lambda-CDM Wikipedia page)","c_root_id_A":"eyk4q8o","c_root_id_B":"eyk2jdu","created_at_utc_A":1567136852,"created_at_utc_B":1567134955,"score_A":18,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"This thread is basically predicated on numerology","human_ref_B":"Pure coincidence. The numbers were different in the past and will be different in the future. Given three numbers that add to 1 you can always find some other numbers that happen to be close to these.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1897.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"cx8zg6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why are dark energy, dark matter, and normal matter estimates so close to the normal distribution standard deviations? Is there any (even theoretical) explanation for why the dark energy, dark matter, and normal matter estimates are very close to the normal distribution standard deviations? * One sigma percent: 68.27% * Estimated dark energy percent: 68.3% * Two sigma - one sigma: 27.2% * Estimated dark matter percent: 26.8% * 100% - two sigma: 4.6% * Estimated normal matter percent: 4.8% I've been searching and haven't seen the comparison drawn elsewhere. I'm mostly curious if any aspects of the standard model makes sense of why matter distributions would overlay so closely with standard deviations of the normal distribution. (Note, the dark energy estimate is from the 2018 Plank results, and the other two were from 2013 estimates - all from the Lambda-CDM Wikipedia page)","c_root_id_A":"eyjnw16","c_root_id_B":"eyk2jdu","created_at_utc_A":1567123568,"created_at_utc_B":1567134955,"score_A":8,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":">Is there any (even theoretical) explanation for why the dark energy, dark matter, and normal matter estimates are very close to the normal distribution standard deviations? Anthropic principle. In all seriousness, I think we just don't know enough about the nature of either dark energy or dark matter to be asking the question of why there is X much of either, and how significant those abundances are or are not.","human_ref_B":"Pure coincidence. The numbers were different in the past and will be different in the future. Given three numbers that add to 1 you can always find some other numbers that happen to be close to these.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11387.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"cx8zg6","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why are dark energy, dark matter, and normal matter estimates so close to the normal distribution standard deviations? Is there any (even theoretical) explanation for why the dark energy, dark matter, and normal matter estimates are very close to the normal distribution standard deviations? * One sigma percent: 68.27% * Estimated dark energy percent: 68.3% * Two sigma - one sigma: 27.2% * Estimated dark matter percent: 26.8% * 100% - two sigma: 4.6% * Estimated normal matter percent: 4.8% I've been searching and haven't seen the comparison drawn elsewhere. I'm mostly curious if any aspects of the standard model makes sense of why matter distributions would overlay so closely with standard deviations of the normal distribution. (Note, the dark energy estimate is from the 2018 Plank results, and the other two were from 2013 estimates - all from the Lambda-CDM Wikipedia page)","c_root_id_A":"eyjnw16","c_root_id_B":"eyk4q8o","created_at_utc_A":1567123568,"created_at_utc_B":1567136852,"score_A":8,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":">Is there any (even theoretical) explanation for why the dark energy, dark matter, and normal matter estimates are very close to the normal distribution standard deviations? Anthropic principle. In all seriousness, I think we just don't know enough about the nature of either dark energy or dark matter to be asking the question of why there is X much of either, and how significant those abundances are or are not.","human_ref_B":"This thread is basically predicated on numerology","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13284.0,"score_ratio":2.25} {"post_id":"dhavim","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"should the difficulty of physics discourage me from pursuing it as a major? hi guys, I'm in my senior year of high school this year and hadn't considered doing a physics major in more than passing; however, upon taking the class this year I've come to really enjoy the material and find it interesting. I know it's only high school physics so its much easier than something at university level and i havent always been good at math. I've got a real passion for the subject, but is it more free-time fun or something more? Any thoughts are welcomed!","c_root_id_A":"f3lhnf8","c_root_id_B":"f3lt6ck","created_at_utc_A":1570976107,"created_at_utc_B":1570979344,"score_A":7,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"I'd say try it out! Don't worry about where you stand in math now, you will learn all you need as part of undergrad. If you stay on top of it, it's totally possible.","human_ref_B":"Before I started studying physics, I was just alright at math. When I first started studying physics though, it was kind of eye opening that math teachers weren't just making shit up for no reason. I finally saw its utility in its application to physics. Now I'd say I'm relatively good at math, so don't let the math discourage you. You can always sharpen that And I think passion is really what you need, so if you have that, I think it's a good idea","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3237.0,"score_ratio":4.2857142857} {"post_id":"dhavim","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"should the difficulty of physics discourage me from pursuing it as a major? hi guys, I'm in my senior year of high school this year and hadn't considered doing a physics major in more than passing; however, upon taking the class this year I've come to really enjoy the material and find it interesting. I know it's only high school physics so its much easier than something at university level and i havent always been good at math. I've got a real passion for the subject, but is it more free-time fun or something more? Any thoughts are welcomed!","c_root_id_A":"f3lt6ck","c_root_id_B":"f3ljneo","created_at_utc_A":1570979344,"created_at_utc_B":1570976589,"score_A":30,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Before I started studying physics, I was just alright at math. When I first started studying physics though, it was kind of eye opening that math teachers weren't just making shit up for no reason. I finally saw its utility in its application to physics. Now I'd say I'm relatively good at math, so don't let the math discourage you. You can always sharpen that And I think passion is really what you need, so if you have that, I think it's a good idea","human_ref_B":"Do continue to pursue it, for sure. Also consider engineering, which involves lots of physics in practical applications.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2755.0,"score_ratio":4.2857142857} {"post_id":"dhavim","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"should the difficulty of physics discourage me from pursuing it as a major? hi guys, I'm in my senior year of high school this year and hadn't considered doing a physics major in more than passing; however, upon taking the class this year I've come to really enjoy the material and find it interesting. I know it's only high school physics so its much easier than something at university level and i havent always been good at math. I've got a real passion for the subject, but is it more free-time fun or something more? Any thoughts are welcomed!","c_root_id_A":"f3li8e7","c_root_id_B":"f3lhnf8","created_at_utc_A":1570976257,"created_at_utc_B":1570976107,"score_A":31,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"You shouldn't pick a major based on difficulty. If you're enjoying physics then I say go for it. If you end up not liking it after the first year most of the classes you took would transfer to another hard science (not sure about other majors).","human_ref_B":"I'd say try it out! Don't worry about where you stand in math now, you will learn all you need as part of undergrad. If you stay on top of it, it's totally possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":150.0,"score_ratio":4.4285714286} {"post_id":"whk6k9","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"If we where to trace back a particle emitted from a white hole, would we find that it quit the white hole infinitely into the past?","c_root_id_A":"ij62mp6","c_root_id_B":"ij61rjr","created_at_utc_A":1659779801,"created_at_utc_B":1659779066,"score_A":15,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Since a white hole is a time reversed black hole, you can directly translate statements about black holes. For example: --- A particle that enters a black hole horizon reaches the singularity in finite proper time. A particle that emerges from a white hole singularity exits the horizon in finite proper time. --- An outside observer never sees an object cross the black hole horizon. Instead the object gets asymptotically closer and more redshifted. In practice, since light is quantized, the outside observer will receive fairly quickly the last photon from the infalling object. An object emerging from a white hole sees, in principle, the infinite past of the outside observer. ~~In practice, the distant past would be highly redshifted, and since light is quantized, the earliest photon from the outside observer would not necessarily be from that long ago.~~ Edit: sorry, that was wrong. There's no limit to the number of photons that the outside observer could emit, going into the infinite past. Thinking about it more, I believe it's correct to say that an object exiting a white hole horizon would be confronted by blueshifted light from the entire past universe. --- It is not the case that an object that falls into a black hole sees the universe's infinite future. It is not the case that an object emerging from a white hole was visible to observers in the infinite past.","human_ref_B":"It would've left the white hole at a finite point in its own past. Schwarschild coordinates don't go in to the white hole region, but its a bit like the white hole region is beyond the infinite past of the Schwarzschild time coodridnate, just like it is a bit like the black hole region is beyond the infinite future of the Schwarzschild time coordinate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":735.0,"score_ratio":3.75} {"post_id":"ryn9vs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"What research in theoretical physics could a high school student do? I already know what I want to conduct my research on (topic: magnetic monopoles), the problem is just that I don't know what to investigate or analyze. What are some research methods you would recommend? What are some easily applicable concepts? Preferably, rather advanced topics\/math, but \"simple\" execution. To be clear, I am not interested in specific examples of what I can do, but rather a more general description of how I would be able to come up with something useful that I can use to conduct my research.","c_root_id_A":"hrq5b1u","c_root_id_B":"hrpvo0g","created_at_utc_A":1641608835,"created_at_utc_B":1641604643,"score_A":61,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"I'd like to echo u\/geekusprimus:s answer with letting you know that I too was very excited at the idea of doing a project in theoretical physics when I was in high school. I wanted to do something about quantum gravity but my physics teacher told me essentially what has already been said here. Let me tell you... I am *so* happy that I did not do the project. Looking back at it, it would essentially have been completely useless when there is so much cool physics you can actually do properly at the level you are at now. I ended up doing something completely different, but before that I took a look at some of the equations used when dealing with quantum gravity and said \"well, some day I will get this.\". And today, I (*kind of*) do! I guess what I'm trying to day is don't jump ahead. It is worth it in the end.","human_ref_B":"Assuming you mean \"research\" as in \"make novel contributions\" rather than a literature review, the answer, unfortunately, is that most theoretical research is way above what the average high school student has the math background to do. There are a handful of topics, like the basics of quantum information, that an ambitious high schooler could grasp, though how much they could contribute to original research is debatable. Unless you have a pretty firm grasp on quantum field theory, any sort of novel research in magnetic monopoles is almost certainly out of the question. If you're interested in getting involved in physics research at the high school level, I think you'll have a lot more luck with a project in data analysis or looking for opportunities to help out with someone else's experiment.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4192.0,"score_ratio":1.1296296296} {"post_id":"ryn9vs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"What research in theoretical physics could a high school student do? I already know what I want to conduct my research on (topic: magnetic monopoles), the problem is just that I don't know what to investigate or analyze. What are some research methods you would recommend? What are some easily applicable concepts? Preferably, rather advanced topics\/math, but \"simple\" execution. To be clear, I am not interested in specific examples of what I can do, but rather a more general description of how I would be able to come up with something useful that I can use to conduct my research.","c_root_id_A":"hrq5b1u","c_root_id_B":"hrq2sj3","created_at_utc_A":1641608835,"created_at_utc_B":1641607737,"score_A":61,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"I'd like to echo u\/geekusprimus:s answer with letting you know that I too was very excited at the idea of doing a project in theoretical physics when I was in high school. I wanted to do something about quantum gravity but my physics teacher told me essentially what has already been said here. Let me tell you... I am *so* happy that I did not do the project. Looking back at it, it would essentially have been completely useless when there is so much cool physics you can actually do properly at the level you are at now. I ended up doing something completely different, but before that I took a look at some of the equations used when dealing with quantum gravity and said \"well, some day I will get this.\". And today, I (*kind of*) do! I guess what I'm trying to day is don't jump ahead. It is worth it in the end.","human_ref_B":"Self-study math or contact a professor at a local college and ask if they have any data analysis you might be able to help with. Magnetic monopoles are far, far out of your reach. You'll need at minimum 3-5 more years of math\/physics training to get even close. Additionally you will need to be mentored by someone already working in physics to actually learn how to conduct research and go about these topics properly. Focus on getting ahead in math and programming skills to make yourself more attractive to labs when you co to university.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1098.0,"score_ratio":1.9677419355} {"post_id":"ryn9vs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"What research in theoretical physics could a high school student do? I already know what I want to conduct my research on (topic: magnetic monopoles), the problem is just that I don't know what to investigate or analyze. What are some research methods you would recommend? What are some easily applicable concepts? Preferably, rather advanced topics\/math, but \"simple\" execution. To be clear, I am not interested in specific examples of what I can do, but rather a more general description of how I would be able to come up with something useful that I can use to conduct my research.","c_root_id_A":"hrq4wbk","c_root_id_B":"hrq5b1u","created_at_utc_A":1641608655,"created_at_utc_B":1641608835,"score_A":9,"score_B":61,"human_ref_A":"I have found it fun to improve analysis and models used in some slightly old experiments. For example, the Edington plates are available digitally now at high resolution. You can measure the distortion caused by the sun's gravity and compare it to the theoretical predictions. https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/science\/2019\/may\/12\/100-years-on-eclipse-1919-picture-that-changed-universe-arthur-eddington-einstein-theory-gravity There are other problems ready to be solved you could take a shot at such as why the earth set a record for the shortest year ever recorded. https:\/\/www.newsweek.com\/2021-quickest-year-ever-record-1664719","human_ref_B":"I'd like to echo u\/geekusprimus:s answer with letting you know that I too was very excited at the idea of doing a project in theoretical physics when I was in high school. I wanted to do something about quantum gravity but my physics teacher told me essentially what has already been said here. Let me tell you... I am *so* happy that I did not do the project. Looking back at it, it would essentially have been completely useless when there is so much cool physics you can actually do properly at the level you are at now. I ended up doing something completely different, but before that I took a look at some of the equations used when dealing with quantum gravity and said \"well, some day I will get this.\". And today, I (*kind of*) do! I guess what I'm trying to day is don't jump ahead. It is worth it in the end.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":180.0,"score_ratio":6.7777777778} {"post_id":"ryn9vs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"What research in theoretical physics could a high school student do? I already know what I want to conduct my research on (topic: magnetic monopoles), the problem is just that I don't know what to investigate or analyze. What are some research methods you would recommend? What are some easily applicable concepts? Preferably, rather advanced topics\/math, but \"simple\" execution. To be clear, I am not interested in specific examples of what I can do, but rather a more general description of how I would be able to come up with something useful that I can use to conduct my research.","c_root_id_A":"hrq4wbk","c_root_id_B":"hrqna3g","created_at_utc_A":1641608655,"created_at_utc_B":1641617332,"score_A":9,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"I have found it fun to improve analysis and models used in some slightly old experiments. For example, the Edington plates are available digitally now at high resolution. You can measure the distortion caused by the sun's gravity and compare it to the theoretical predictions. https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/science\/2019\/may\/12\/100-years-on-eclipse-1919-picture-that-changed-universe-arthur-eddington-einstein-theory-gravity There are other problems ready to be solved you could take a shot at such as why the earth set a record for the shortest year ever recorded. https:\/\/www.newsweek.com\/2021-quickest-year-ever-record-1664719","human_ref_B":"What world champion boxer could a high school student knock out?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8677.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"ryn9vs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"What research in theoretical physics could a high school student do? I already know what I want to conduct my research on (topic: magnetic monopoles), the problem is just that I don't know what to investigate or analyze. What are some research methods you would recommend? What are some easily applicable concepts? Preferably, rather advanced topics\/math, but \"simple\" execution. To be clear, I am not interested in specific examples of what I can do, but rather a more general description of how I would be able to come up with something useful that I can use to conduct my research.","c_root_id_A":"hrqsh8a","c_root_id_B":"hrq4wbk","created_at_utc_A":1641620137,"created_at_utc_B":1641608655,"score_A":17,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"If there was an unsolved problem in physics someone could solve with just the knowledge and tools an ordinary high school student has, it would have been solved centuries ago. edit: to clarify, you could do something, but there is a lot you would need to learn to do anything novel.","human_ref_B":"I have found it fun to improve analysis and models used in some slightly old experiments. For example, the Edington plates are available digitally now at high resolution. You can measure the distortion caused by the sun's gravity and compare it to the theoretical predictions. https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/science\/2019\/may\/12\/100-years-on-eclipse-1919-picture-that-changed-universe-arthur-eddington-einstein-theory-gravity There are other problems ready to be solved you could take a shot at such as why the earth set a record for the shortest year ever recorded. https:\/\/www.newsweek.com\/2021-quickest-year-ever-record-1664719","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11482.0,"score_ratio":1.8888888889} {"post_id":"ryn9vs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"What research in theoretical physics could a high school student do? I already know what I want to conduct my research on (topic: magnetic monopoles), the problem is just that I don't know what to investigate or analyze. What are some research methods you would recommend? What are some easily applicable concepts? Preferably, rather advanced topics\/math, but \"simple\" execution. To be clear, I am not interested in specific examples of what I can do, but rather a more general description of how I would be able to come up with something useful that I can use to conduct my research.","c_root_id_A":"hrqytt0","c_root_id_B":"hrr4z0u","created_at_utc_A":1641623996,"created_at_utc_B":1641628318,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s great that you\u2019re interested in theoretical physics, and a specific topic at that. However, there really aren\u2019t any \u201csimple\u201d avenues of research on magnetic monopoles. To get a sense of the prerequisite knowledge you\u2019d need, check out the first three chapters of David Tong\u2019s gauge theory notes. You\u2019d need to understand pretty much every sentence and equation in those early chapters in full detail to even begin understanding the questions people ask about monopoles. Doing so requires a strong understanding of QFT, which in turn requires a mastery of classical mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics, to say nothing about the requisite mathematics. All of this takes years to learn. I say this not to dampen your enthusiasm, but rather to point out that beginning research doesn\u2019t happen overnight, and it almost always requires an advisor or mentor. Ask yourself, what skills do you have that you can leverage? If you, as a high schooler, were to approach a university professor about doing research with them, how would you advertise yourself? You might not know graduate-level physics yet, but with some effort you can quickly get a good handle on programming and data analysis. That alone might convince an established researcher to take you on. As you learn how research is conducted, you can gradually build up your physics\/math knowledge and eventually reach the point where you can formulate unknown questions you\u2019d like to answer yourself.","human_ref_B":"All other answers are correct (waiting, finding a mentor, studying the field etc.), but if you really want to go it alone for now, the most productive avenue may be to develop your coding \/ simulation skills. Being able to code up a good simulation of your system of interest is a useful skill in most areas of physics, and something you can start to experiment with in relative isolation. In fact a quick google search shows a few open source codes for simulating magnetic monopoles which you could download and immediately start playing with.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4322.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"ryn9vs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"What research in theoretical physics could a high school student do? I already know what I want to conduct my research on (topic: magnetic monopoles), the problem is just that I don't know what to investigate or analyze. What are some research methods you would recommend? What are some easily applicable concepts? Preferably, rather advanced topics\/math, but \"simple\" execution. To be clear, I am not interested in specific examples of what I can do, but rather a more general description of how I would be able to come up with something useful that I can use to conduct my research.","c_root_id_A":"hrr3v8p","c_root_id_B":"hrr4z0u","created_at_utc_A":1641627504,"created_at_utc_B":1641628318,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The best thing you can do with your high school level knowledge is study for 5 years until you're up to speed with modern day research. Then you can do research. It's also not just about the knowledge you are lacking now but university teaches you the methods and skills to do research and to understand other people's research. There would be no point of university education in physics if someone on high school level already had all the tools to do it. University is exactly set up to fetch you at that level and as fast as possible bring you to the level where you can do research. Unless you've done that in your high school spare time somehow, you aren't able to do research now.","human_ref_B":"All other answers are correct (waiting, finding a mentor, studying the field etc.), but if you really want to go it alone for now, the most productive avenue may be to develop your coding \/ simulation skills. Being able to code up a good simulation of your system of interest is a useful skill in most areas of physics, and something you can start to experiment with in relative isolation. In fact a quick google search shows a few open source codes for simulating magnetic monopoles which you could download and immediately start playing with.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":814.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"ryn9vs","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"What research in theoretical physics could a high school student do? I already know what I want to conduct my research on (topic: magnetic monopoles), the problem is just that I don't know what to investigate or analyze. What are some research methods you would recommend? What are some easily applicable concepts? Preferably, rather advanced topics\/math, but \"simple\" execution. To be clear, I am not interested in specific examples of what I can do, but rather a more general description of how I would be able to come up with something useful that I can use to conduct my research.","c_root_id_A":"hrr4z0u","c_root_id_B":"hrr4hz0","created_at_utc_A":1641628318,"created_at_utc_B":1641627969,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"All other answers are correct (waiting, finding a mentor, studying the field etc.), but if you really want to go it alone for now, the most productive avenue may be to develop your coding \/ simulation skills. Being able to code up a good simulation of your system of interest is a useful skill in most areas of physics, and something you can start to experiment with in relative isolation. In fact a quick google search shows a few open source codes for simulating magnetic monopoles which you could download and immediately start playing with.","human_ref_B":"Try to watch lecture 30 of this course (see module 14 there) on youtube. By minute 15 max you will see you simply have absolutely no idea what's going on, before reading on please stop and try it first - once this happens you can try to figure out what the earlier lectures were doing. When you see you have no idea what's going on there either, you can try to figure out all the prerequisite knowledge from a first calculus-based physics course to this. That is the useful thing you can do, realize what you don't know and make a plan for how to get to the stage where you will be able to understand this stuff. By the time you're able to understand this and the next lecture, you'll agree that there's no way anybody would ever have let you do a serious research project on this stuff :p","labels":1,"seconds_difference":349.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"o81oxt","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Is it possible for any unknown physics there may be to allow for reactionless drives to work, or are our current laws of physics so comprehensive and absolute that no matter what more we discover, it is impossible for anything to allow for such a thing? Could anything trump conservation of momentum?","c_root_id_A":"h32hyvj","c_root_id_B":"h32g59x","created_at_utc_A":1624676721,"created_at_utc_B":1624675636,"score_A":50,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"Empirical evidence rules the day. There is no evidence pointing to this being possible, and no exceptions that we know of. If you show up with a reactionless drive, that stops being true, and we have rather a lot of rewriting to do.","human_ref_B":"Science is based on evidence. There is no evidence that reactionless drives work.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1085.0,"score_ratio":1.5625} {"post_id":"o81oxt","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Is it possible for any unknown physics there may be to allow for reactionless drives to work, or are our current laws of physics so comprehensive and absolute that no matter what more we discover, it is impossible for anything to allow for such a thing? Could anything trump conservation of momentum?","c_root_id_A":"h32euhe","c_root_id_B":"h32hyvj","created_at_utc_A":1624674871,"created_at_utc_B":1624676721,"score_A":2,"score_B":50,"human_ref_A":"No, reactionless drives can't work","human_ref_B":"Empirical evidence rules the day. There is no evidence pointing to this being possible, and no exceptions that we know of. If you show up with a reactionless drive, that stops being true, and we have rather a lot of rewriting to do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1850.0,"score_ratio":25.0} {"post_id":"o81oxt","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Is it possible for any unknown physics there may be to allow for reactionless drives to work, or are our current laws of physics so comprehensive and absolute that no matter what more we discover, it is impossible for anything to allow for such a thing? Could anything trump conservation of momentum?","c_root_id_A":"h32g59x","c_root_id_B":"h32euhe","created_at_utc_A":1624675636,"created_at_utc_B":1624674871,"score_A":32,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Science is based on evidence. There is no evidence that reactionless drives work.","human_ref_B":"No, reactionless drives can't work","labels":1,"seconds_difference":765.0,"score_ratio":16.0} {"post_id":"o81oxt","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Is it possible for any unknown physics there may be to allow for reactionless drives to work, or are our current laws of physics so comprehensive and absolute that no matter what more we discover, it is impossible for anything to allow for such a thing? Could anything trump conservation of momentum?","c_root_id_A":"h32euhe","c_root_id_B":"h32j07l","created_at_utc_A":1624674871,"created_at_utc_B":1624677362,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"No, reactionless drives can't work","human_ref_B":"Noether's theorem tells us that is a system is invariant with respect to a translation in space, then linear momentum is conserved for that system. You're not going to beat that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2491.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"o81oxt","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Is it possible for any unknown physics there may be to allow for reactionless drives to work, or are our current laws of physics so comprehensive and absolute that no matter what more we discover, it is impossible for anything to allow for such a thing? Could anything trump conservation of momentum?","c_root_id_A":"h32m2cr","c_root_id_B":"h32euhe","created_at_utc_A":1624679326,"created_at_utc_B":1624674871,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Current laws of physics, based on centuries of observation, seem pretty airtight, regarding the existence of inertia as a property of materials that have mass. No earthly observations nor theories have invalidated that connection. So when UAP objects appear to violate the laws of physics, accelerating at 1000 g's, navigating at hypersonic speeds without friction or sonic booms, we should be skeptical, and not instantly presume that it is merely advanced technology. No. It would be revolutionary technology, Totally alien to everything that science has learned. Actually impossible, according to our science. In order to ditch everything that we have learned about science, I'm going to require more evidence,","human_ref_B":"No, reactionless drives can't work","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4455.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"o81oxt","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Is it possible for any unknown physics there may be to allow for reactionless drives to work, or are our current laws of physics so comprehensive and absolute that no matter what more we discover, it is impossible for anything to allow for such a thing? Could anything trump conservation of momentum?","c_root_id_A":"h32yim6","c_root_id_B":"h32euhe","created_at_utc_A":1624688555,"created_at_utc_B":1624674871,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Nothing is absolute scientific laws can change but the empirical evidence must be there first","human_ref_B":"No, reactionless drives can't work","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13684.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"o81oxt","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Is it possible for any unknown physics there may be to allow for reactionless drives to work, or are our current laws of physics so comprehensive and absolute that no matter what more we discover, it is impossible for anything to allow for such a thing? Could anything trump conservation of momentum?","c_root_id_A":"h32uu7n","c_root_id_B":"h32yim6","created_at_utc_A":1624685547,"created_at_utc_B":1624688555,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"There is no evidence these drives work. That does not mean - not remotely - that our current theories are so comprehensive and so well-proven that they describe all things.","human_ref_B":"Nothing is absolute scientific laws can change but the empirical evidence must be there first","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3008.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"z97huq","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why information loss in a black hole is such a big deal? Why should we care?","c_root_id_A":"iyftnyz","c_root_id_B":"iyfersd","created_at_utc_A":1669859850,"created_at_utc_B":1669852847,"score_A":32,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"Interesting book by Leonard Susskind about this called *The Black Hole War*, basically about the effort to debunk Stephen Hawking's theory and how that lead to the Holographic Principle.","human_ref_B":"Because information should be conserved. If you want to claim it isn't conserved, you better have a really good explanation for why it isn't, including the fact that it is manifestly conserved in the boundary theory of a black hole in AdS. Also these days essentially everyone agrees it is conserved. The issue is about explicit calculations of the Page curve and monogamy of entanglement\/firewalls.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7003.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667} {"post_id":"z97huq","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why information loss in a black hole is such a big deal? Why should we care?","c_root_id_A":"iyftnyz","c_root_id_B":"iyfr1kg","created_at_utc_A":1669859850,"created_at_utc_B":1669858627,"score_A":32,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Interesting book by Leonard Susskind about this called *The Black Hole War*, basically about the effort to debunk Stephen Hawking's theory and how that lead to the Holographic Principle.","human_ref_B":"The information in a black hole isn't actually lost, it's scrambled. When a black hole releases some of it's mass it is actually spewing the information, all over the place. To put it into perspective, if you were to go into a black hole, and eventually die, after the black hole has had all your particles in it for long enough it spits them back out. But you should care since anything that goes into a black hole alive, doesn't come back out in the same shape.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1223.0,"score_ratio":8.0} {"post_id":"z97huq","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why information loss in a black hole is such a big deal? Why should we care?","c_root_id_A":"iyfynj5","c_root_id_B":"iyfr1kg","created_at_utc_A":1669862145,"created_at_utc_B":1669858627,"score_A":28,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"my limited understanding is: imagine that a metal sphere is moving through space at say 100 m\/s. now imagine that sphere just suddenly stops for absolutely no reason. You could say the momentum just disappeared. This never happens because momentum is conserved. Now imagine information is another thing that is conserved. A black hole making it disappear is about the same situation as a moving object just stopping for no reason. You might ask, well isn't the information still in the black hold just beyond our view. But black holes are expected to evaporate over time due to hawking radiation. So the black hole would be gone, but none of the radiation that made it actually came from the hole it self. so the information went where?","human_ref_B":"The information in a black hole isn't actually lost, it's scrambled. When a black hole releases some of it's mass it is actually spewing the information, all over the place. To put it into perspective, if you were to go into a black hole, and eventually die, after the black hole has had all your particles in it for long enough it spits them back out. But you should care since anything that goes into a black hole alive, doesn't come back out in the same shape.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3518.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"m87cr2","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How can electric and magnetic fields exist without electrons? (Electromagnetic radiation)","c_root_id_A":"grgbmjq","c_root_id_B":"grgvanl","created_at_utc_A":1616133725,"created_at_utc_B":1616152590,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"In addition to what the others said, electrons are not the only charged particles. Almost every fundamental matter particle carries charge (except for neutrinos). Sometimes they add up to zero, like when one constructs a neutron, sometimes they don't, like when someone constructs a proton. Also, the presumption is weird, because electrons do exist. Asking what a universe without electrons would look like is weird. In the most simple case, muons would be stable and replace the role of electrons. It would change everything and nothing at the same time. Chemistry would be completely different, but there would be a stable negative particle \"replacing\" the electron.","human_ref_B":"I think you might be mixing up fields with something more like transmission or flow, if I\u2019m reading you right. Electromagnetic stuff can be pretty complicated and hard to imagine without math to fall back on, so it might help you to think about a more tangible example like gravity which is very similar to attractive electrical configurations. Even though the mass of the earth is not at the moon, the field it creates still holds the moon in orbit from a distance. It\u2019s analogous to an electron creating a field that exists in space around it. If you see evidence of a gravitational field, you should find a source if you follow its gradient (go from weak points to stronger points). That source should be some massive object. If you find an electric field somewhere, you should be able to source back to electrons. Another easy way (though less mathematically and physically correct as an analogy) to think of it is shouting across a field. Even though you, the source of the shout, are only in one place, other can hear your shout at various points in the field. You in a fixed location can cause an effect in many.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18865.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"m87cr2","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How can electric and magnetic fields exist without electrons? (Electromagnetic radiation)","c_root_id_A":"grgqyky","c_root_id_B":"grgvanl","created_at_utc_A":1616148646,"created_at_utc_B":1616152590,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Remember (roughly speaking) a field is just a map, you give it a coordinate and it gives you back a number\/vector\/tensor, depends on the nature of the field. In this case, you give it the point in spacetime, the map gives you back a vector, as em field is a vector field. And fields can exist as long as you can define it, and what can \u201cfeel\u201d the field has to be appealed to physics. Eg a rock (electron) in a pond (em field) makes ripples (em wave), sure the rock makes disturbance to the water but the pond exists no matter there\u2019s a rock or not.","human_ref_B":"I think you might be mixing up fields with something more like transmission or flow, if I\u2019m reading you right. Electromagnetic stuff can be pretty complicated and hard to imagine without math to fall back on, so it might help you to think about a more tangible example like gravity which is very similar to attractive electrical configurations. Even though the mass of the earth is not at the moon, the field it creates still holds the moon in orbit from a distance. It\u2019s analogous to an electron creating a field that exists in space around it. If you see evidence of a gravitational field, you should find a source if you follow its gradient (go from weak points to stronger points). That source should be some massive object. If you find an electric field somewhere, you should be able to source back to electrons. Another easy way (though less mathematically and physically correct as an analogy) to think of it is shouting across a field. Even though you, the source of the shout, are only in one place, other can hear your shout at various points in the field. You in a fixed location can cause an effect in many.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3944.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"m87cr2","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How can electric and magnetic fields exist without electrons? (Electromagnetic radiation)","c_root_id_A":"grgvanl","c_root_id_B":"grgdec1","created_at_utc_A":1616152590,"created_at_utc_B":1616135253,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I think you might be mixing up fields with something more like transmission or flow, if I\u2019m reading you right. Electromagnetic stuff can be pretty complicated and hard to imagine without math to fall back on, so it might help you to think about a more tangible example like gravity which is very similar to attractive electrical configurations. Even though the mass of the earth is not at the moon, the field it creates still holds the moon in orbit from a distance. It\u2019s analogous to an electron creating a field that exists in space around it. If you see evidence of a gravitational field, you should find a source if you follow its gradient (go from weak points to stronger points). That source should be some massive object. If you find an electric field somewhere, you should be able to source back to electrons. Another easy way (though less mathematically and physically correct as an analogy) to think of it is shouting across a field. Even though you, the source of the shout, are only in one place, other can hear your shout at various points in the field. You in a fixed location can cause an effect in many.","human_ref_B":"The field itself is physically real, the reason you feel warmth from the sun is because the EM field literally carries momentum (the same momentum you feel when you catch a heavy object) from the sun to the atoms in your skin. The fields are physical objects whose states are necessary to define a physical system, they aren't just some ephemeral thing that only exist as a result of charges.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17337.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"m87cr2","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How can electric and magnetic fields exist without electrons? (Electromagnetic radiation)","c_root_id_A":"grgqyky","c_root_id_B":"grgbmjq","created_at_utc_A":1616148646,"created_at_utc_B":1616133725,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Remember (roughly speaking) a field is just a map, you give it a coordinate and it gives you back a number\/vector\/tensor, depends on the nature of the field. In this case, you give it the point in spacetime, the map gives you back a vector, as em field is a vector field. And fields can exist as long as you can define it, and what can \u201cfeel\u201d the field has to be appealed to physics. Eg a rock (electron) in a pond (em field) makes ripples (em wave), sure the rock makes disturbance to the water but the pond exists no matter there\u2019s a rock or not.","human_ref_B":"In addition to what the others said, electrons are not the only charged particles. Almost every fundamental matter particle carries charge (except for neutrinos). Sometimes they add up to zero, like when one constructs a neutron, sometimes they don't, like when someone constructs a proton. Also, the presumption is weird, because electrons do exist. Asking what a universe without electrons would look like is weird. In the most simple case, muons would be stable and replace the role of electrons. It would change everything and nothing at the same time. Chemistry would be completely different, but there would be a stable negative particle \"replacing\" the electron.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14921.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"m87cr2","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How can electric and magnetic fields exist without electrons? (Electromagnetic radiation)","c_root_id_A":"grgdec1","c_root_id_B":"grgqyky","created_at_utc_A":1616135253,"created_at_utc_B":1616148646,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The field itself is physically real, the reason you feel warmth from the sun is because the EM field literally carries momentum (the same momentum you feel when you catch a heavy object) from the sun to the atoms in your skin. The fields are physical objects whose states are necessary to define a physical system, they aren't just some ephemeral thing that only exist as a result of charges.","human_ref_B":"Remember (roughly speaking) a field is just a map, you give it a coordinate and it gives you back a number\/vector\/tensor, depends on the nature of the field. In this case, you give it the point in spacetime, the map gives you back a vector, as em field is a vector field. And fields can exist as long as you can define it, and what can \u201cfeel\u201d the field has to be appealed to physics. Eg a rock (electron) in a pond (em field) makes ripples (em wave), sure the rock makes disturbance to the water but the pond exists no matter there\u2019s a rock or not.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13393.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"zur1kn","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"Hypothetically, if an object is thrown and lands on a frictionless surface, where air resistance is negligible, will it continue moving in the horizontal direction? From what I understood, it'll move forever in the horizontal direction once it reaches the ground since the horizontal velocity is constant and will remain constant when no force (like friction) is acting against its motion. Is this correct? If not, please explain to me, thank you!","c_root_id_A":"j1l0hi0","c_root_id_B":"j1kxniq","created_at_utc_A":1671946930,"created_at_utc_B":1671944982,"score_A":63,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"One might even say that an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.","human_ref_B":"Yes, that is correct.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1948.0,"score_ratio":12.6} {"post_id":"zur1kn","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"Hypothetically, if an object is thrown and lands on a frictionless surface, where air resistance is negligible, will it continue moving in the horizontal direction? From what I understood, it'll move forever in the horizontal direction once it reaches the ground since the horizontal velocity is constant and will remain constant when no force (like friction) is acting against its motion. Is this correct? If not, please explain to me, thank you!","c_root_id_A":"j1l0hi0","c_root_id_B":"j1ky8cn","created_at_utc_A":1671946930,"created_at_utc_B":1671945375,"score_A":63,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"One might even say that an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.","human_ref_B":"Yes you are right. And isn't this like the Newton's first law.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1555.0,"score_ratio":12.6} {"post_id":"wz1rxn","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Why doesn't the second law of thermodynamics undermine the Big Bounce Theory? So, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that as time goes on, there will be less and less usable energy. This naturally lends credit to the idea that the universe has a beginning because if it was infinite we would've run out of usable energy right? And since we haven't, the universe cannot have existed infinitely. So, how does this apply to the big bounce? My understanding of the big bounce is basically that it's an infinite series of big bangs and big crunches. But energy conserved between a big crunch and bang because of the first law right? So that means that the total energy is constant, but usable energy is declining. And that means that we should be out of usable energy if the big bounce were true. One of my assumptions here is clearly wrong. I have a feeling I am not the first to think of this objection, so I doubt it's an issue with the theory. The only issue I could see is assuming energy is conserved between bang and crunch. Is that true? If not, how is it not a violation of the first law? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"im09po9","c_root_id_B":"im06e4w","created_at_utc_A":1661611217,"created_at_utc_B":1661609784,"score_A":18,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The second law *does* undermine the Big Bounce idea. In particular, it implies that a Big Crunch will look nothing like the Big Bang. That's consistent with other lines of evidence, too, like the increasing inhomogeneity of the universe over time. A Big Crunch will be a messy affair, not even describable by the same Friedmann equations as the rest of cosmic evolution owing to the complete breakdown of homogeneity. Some regions will certainly collapse (and bounce) before others do. Some regions will likely never collapse at all. My understanding is that this is part of the reason modern cyclic cosmology theories don't involve a bounce. The bounce just can't make suitable initial conditions for our universe.","human_ref_B":"Further to the answers given, we currently believe the most likely fate of the universe is to end in heat death in the unimaginably distant future, rather than to continue cycling indefinitely through a series of big crunches and big bangs. So no big bounce.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1433.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"yc8knw","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"How do you call a paper that explains a subject from the ground up? You could say that this is called \"a textbook\" but sometimes I find myself looking for short articles that explain a subject more in depth than the average article on Google's front page, that's when I turn to google scholar but understandably so most papers focus only on a specific part of the subject and assume a certain level of understanding. Can you recommend any keywords to look for these kind of publications? How do you go about solving this problem yourself? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"itktrg6","c_root_id_B":"itkzh70","created_at_utc_A":1666612516,"created_at_utc_B":1666615707,"score_A":2,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"It usually isn't done, because people would get very sick of every paper starting with defining numbers and addition... \"The ground\" is very far away in most cases, so people tend to write for peers to read. Some papers are better at referencing the methods and equations used by name than others, though, but I don't think it's something you can search for.","human_ref_B":"I find that doctoral theses often contain pretty good in depth reviews of the relevant subfield.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3191.0,"score_ratio":8.0} {"post_id":"yc8knw","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"How do you call a paper that explains a subject from the ground up? You could say that this is called \"a textbook\" but sometimes I find myself looking for short articles that explain a subject more in depth than the average article on Google's front page, that's when I turn to google scholar but understandably so most papers focus only on a specific part of the subject and assume a certain level of understanding. Can you recommend any keywords to look for these kind of publications? How do you go about solving this problem yourself? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"itktrg6","c_root_id_B":"itmff4q","created_at_utc_A":1666612516,"created_at_utc_B":1666637128,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It usually isn't done, because people would get very sick of every paper starting with defining numbers and addition... \"The ground\" is very far away in most cases, so people tend to write for peers to read. Some papers are better at referencing the methods and equations used by name than others, though, but I don't think it's something you can search for.","human_ref_B":"First off love your thought process. I love learning from the exact introduction level. If I want to learn cooking I want to know ok what are the tools you need. What materials are best. What are the common methods. I feel like I break things down to college course syllabus meets abcs. People say just read a cookbook and follow the steps. I say I am not a follower, I want to learn how a chef would learn. Everything to me is sweet science. Because it is. Anyways. I would say first write what the subject you want to learn. Break everything it has to do with that. Define an expert level and reverse engineer it to the smallest detail. And just dive in. I know nothing of House maintenance so I reverse engineer each discipline as if I was working in a trade. If I called a plumber what questions would they ask? Why? What tools would they bring or use? Why? Why? Why ?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24612.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"yc8knw","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"How do you call a paper that explains a subject from the ground up? You could say that this is called \"a textbook\" but sometimes I find myself looking for short articles that explain a subject more in depth than the average article on Google's front page, that's when I turn to google scholar but understandably so most papers focus only on a specific part of the subject and assume a certain level of understanding. Can you recommend any keywords to look for these kind of publications? How do you go about solving this problem yourself? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"itktrg6","c_root_id_B":"itms8jx","created_at_utc_A":1666612516,"created_at_utc_B":1666642085,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It usually isn't done, because people would get very sick of every paper starting with defining numbers and addition... \"The ground\" is very far away in most cases, so people tend to write for peers to read. Some papers are better at referencing the methods and equations used by name than others, though, but I don't think it's something you can search for.","human_ref_B":"u\/Gwinbar already gave a very good answer, but I'll tack on a more pragmatic comment. One of the best sources for starter information is in student-lab papers. Certain schools around the US with a more pedagogical approach will publish these laboratory papers on Arxiv or in some small journal as a way of disseminating lab-instructions for students or faculty who want to add the specific topic to their lab classes. When I first started doing quantum entanglement work, I found two such papers on SPDC (Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion) from Paul Kwiat and another from David Griffith. These papers were ostensibly written to help their new students learn the topics more quickly, but were intentionally published so the larger scientific community could benefit. Rice College is famous for publishing these sorts of papers and I'm sure you can find almost anything you're looking for coming out of there.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29569.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"lvmfpq","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Is there a reason that the speed of light is ~300 000 km\/s? I mean, the photons have no mass and vacuum has nothing that would slow them down (I think? I'm not an expert), but the speed is still very finite, especially compared to the size of the universe.","c_root_id_A":"gpd1204","c_root_id_B":"gpcnonm","created_at_utc_A":1614645208,"created_at_utc_B":1614638300,"score_A":43,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The strange number (300 000 km\/s) has more to do with the arbitrary way we define km and seconds. You could just as well define the speed of light to be c = 1, and measure all speeds relative to it. Why is it finite, could you have known it must be before Maxwell's equations? That's a good question.","human_ref_B":"If you can handle the math... https:\/\/www.wikihow.com\/Derive-the-Speed-of-Light-from-Maxwell%27s-Equations which is explained by https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/physics\/chapter\/24-1-maxwells-equations-electromagnetic-waves-predicted-and-observed\/ Which calculates *c* as the reciprocal of the square root of the permeability) of free space multiplied by the permittivity of free space. This value was known in the 1800s. What *wasn't* known then was that light is in fact an electromagnetic wave.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6908.0,"score_ratio":8.6} {"post_id":"lvmfpq","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Is there a reason that the speed of light is ~300 000 km\/s? I mean, the photons have no mass and vacuum has nothing that would slow them down (I think? I'm not an expert), but the speed is still very finite, especially compared to the size of the universe.","c_root_id_A":"gpcpg8h","c_root_id_B":"gpd1204","created_at_utc_A":1614639177,"created_at_utc_B":1614645208,"score_A":5,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"It isn't 3\\*10\\^8ms\\^-1 The speed of light is dependent on, without going into the minutiae, time, we measure time precisely by atomic clocks, which work of transitions of cesium (old tech, might be different now). Either way we have a time standard. The metre is defined by the speed of light. So it is defined as the distance light travels in a period of time (defined by the aforementioned clock). So if light is 'slower' the metre is shorter, and if it is 'faster' the metre is longer. In our understanding, because length is defined by the speed of light the speed of light cannot change. Space can however change depending. edit: yeah I could copy paste the equations like anybody else, that is a zero effort response and offers nothing to the reader, save for what they found on google and decided was confusing which is normally the case. Maths is a language and some of us are lucky enough to be given the years to understand it. Don't downvote because I am trying to do by analogy what an equation can do in seconds. This is the most toxic thing in physics and literally turns 100's if not 1000's of students away from the subject, this sick mentality that physics is pure mathematics. Equation spam only goes so far and I have read far too many papers that depend on obfuscated maths to get published. So many papers that actually get the maths wrong and disguise it in complex notation. So what you did a degree and feel like nobody else should understand your subject unless they have done the calculus and tensors. This erudite attitude is the reason why so many young students say no to physics. Can you imagine watching young, enthusiastic men and women turned away from physics because they asked a question and got belittled by people like you. I can, I watch it enough, I have picked up the pieces. My analogy is shit, yes I get that. Go waggle your Maxwell that nobody without a degree understands and see how many people are excited about physics because of it. Analogy is the most useful tool in Physics. Create a mental picture for the student then layer the mathematics to explain the picture, or did nobody here ever watch a Feynman lecture. Sorry, is this a forum for talking about physics or mathematical copy pasting?","human_ref_B":"The strange number (300 000 km\/s) has more to do with the arbitrary way we define km and seconds. You could just as well define the speed of light to be c = 1, and measure all speeds relative to it. Why is it finite, could you have known it must be before Maxwell's equations? That's a good question.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6031.0,"score_ratio":8.6} {"post_id":"lvmfpq","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Is there a reason that the speed of light is ~300 000 km\/s? I mean, the photons have no mass and vacuum has nothing that would slow them down (I think? I'm not an expert), but the speed is still very finite, especially compared to the size of the universe.","c_root_id_A":"gpd74ax","c_root_id_B":"gpcnonm","created_at_utc_A":1614648465,"created_at_utc_B":1614638300,"score_A":13,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Imagine you have an electron sitting in space. You can draw field lines pointing outwards radially from the electron indicating the electric field. Suppose you shifted the electron's location, you'll then see a pulse emanating from the electron and moving outward. This pulse is the interface between \"where the field lines used to be\" and \"where they are now\". This pulse is what we think of as light and the fact that we can track its motion allows us to interpret it as a dynamic object. Now suppose the pulse moved instantaneously. Then any far off observer would instantly see the change in the electron's field, and it would be as if the pulse did not exist at all. So if there was no finite speed of light, the world would be identical to if there was no such dynamical object. There would be no light and only electrons. EDIT: Here's an interesting corollary. If the electron could move faster than the light pulse, the field lines of the pulse would be discontinuous. So if we expect the electric field to be continuous, light pulses must move at the maximum speed.","human_ref_B":"If you can handle the math... https:\/\/www.wikihow.com\/Derive-the-Speed-of-Light-from-Maxwell%27s-Equations which is explained by https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/physics\/chapter\/24-1-maxwells-equations-electromagnetic-waves-predicted-and-observed\/ Which calculates *c* as the reciprocal of the square root of the permeability) of free space multiplied by the permittivity of free space. This value was known in the 1800s. What *wasn't* known then was that light is in fact an electromagnetic wave.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10165.0,"score_ratio":2.6} {"post_id":"lvmfpq","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Is there a reason that the speed of light is ~300 000 km\/s? I mean, the photons have no mass and vacuum has nothing that would slow them down (I think? I'm not an expert), but the speed is still very finite, especially compared to the size of the universe.","c_root_id_A":"gpcpg8h","c_root_id_B":"gpd74ax","created_at_utc_A":1614639177,"created_at_utc_B":1614648465,"score_A":5,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"It isn't 3\\*10\\^8ms\\^-1 The speed of light is dependent on, without going into the minutiae, time, we measure time precisely by atomic clocks, which work of transitions of cesium (old tech, might be different now). Either way we have a time standard. The metre is defined by the speed of light. So it is defined as the distance light travels in a period of time (defined by the aforementioned clock). So if light is 'slower' the metre is shorter, and if it is 'faster' the metre is longer. In our understanding, because length is defined by the speed of light the speed of light cannot change. Space can however change depending. edit: yeah I could copy paste the equations like anybody else, that is a zero effort response and offers nothing to the reader, save for what they found on google and decided was confusing which is normally the case. Maths is a language and some of us are lucky enough to be given the years to understand it. Don't downvote because I am trying to do by analogy what an equation can do in seconds. This is the most toxic thing in physics and literally turns 100's if not 1000's of students away from the subject, this sick mentality that physics is pure mathematics. Equation spam only goes so far and I have read far too many papers that depend on obfuscated maths to get published. So many papers that actually get the maths wrong and disguise it in complex notation. So what you did a degree and feel like nobody else should understand your subject unless they have done the calculus and tensors. This erudite attitude is the reason why so many young students say no to physics. Can you imagine watching young, enthusiastic men and women turned away from physics because they asked a question and got belittled by people like you. I can, I watch it enough, I have picked up the pieces. My analogy is shit, yes I get that. Go waggle your Maxwell that nobody without a degree understands and see how many people are excited about physics because of it. Analogy is the most useful tool in Physics. Create a mental picture for the student then layer the mathematics to explain the picture, or did nobody here ever watch a Feynman lecture. Sorry, is this a forum for talking about physics or mathematical copy pasting?","human_ref_B":"Imagine you have an electron sitting in space. You can draw field lines pointing outwards radially from the electron indicating the electric field. Suppose you shifted the electron's location, you'll then see a pulse emanating from the electron and moving outward. This pulse is the interface between \"where the field lines used to be\" and \"where they are now\". This pulse is what we think of as light and the fact that we can track its motion allows us to interpret it as a dynamic object. Now suppose the pulse moved instantaneously. Then any far off observer would instantly see the change in the electron's field, and it would be as if the pulse did not exist at all. So if there was no finite speed of light, the world would be identical to if there was no such dynamical object. There would be no light and only electrons. EDIT: Here's an interesting corollary. If the electron could move faster than the light pulse, the field lines of the pulse would be discontinuous. So if we expect the electric field to be continuous, light pulses must move at the maximum speed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9288.0,"score_ratio":2.6} {"post_id":"vyjo6n","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"if the hydrogen atom is a spherically symmetric system how do we get wavefunctions which are not spherically symmetric?","c_root_id_A":"ig2nv8u","c_root_id_B":"ig2le34","created_at_utc_A":1657763626,"created_at_utc_B":1657762504,"score_A":24,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It's not so unusual for individual solutions not to have spherical symmetry. Orbits in classical mechanics are often elliptical rather than circular, and even when circular, the plane of the orbit (and thus the direction of the orbital angular momentum) picks out a specific direction. What's important is that rotated solutions are themselves solutions. A superposition of two energy eigenstates with the same energy itself is an energy eigenstate. When rotated, a spherical harmonic of a given l transforms into a sum over m of spherical harmonics with the same l. And in a spherically symmetric potential, the energy is independent of m.","human_ref_B":"If the electrons have angular momentum, that selects one particular direction in space (the axis of revolution). Of course, you don't know (and can't know) which way this axis points.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1122.0,"score_ratio":3.4285714286} {"post_id":"vyjo6n","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"if the hydrogen atom is a spherically symmetric system how do we get wavefunctions which are not spherically symmetric?","c_root_id_A":"ig2le34","c_root_id_B":"ig2v0gy","created_at_utc_A":1657762504,"created_at_utc_B":1657766973,"score_A":7,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"If the electrons have angular momentum, that selects one particular direction in space (the axis of revolution). Of course, you don't know (and can't know) which way this axis points.","human_ref_B":"The eigenfunctions are *basis functions* used to describe any state that satisfies the Schrodinger equation. If your initial state has some finite angular momentum, this angular momentum breaks the naively obvious symmetry. Because you can have initial conditions without spherical symmetry (e.g. there\u2019s a preferred direction due to the angular momentum of the particle), you need basis functions that can represent that. Remember that ultimately, the Schrodinger equation describes time evolution of a wavefunction. I should be able to give you *any* initial wavefunction that satisfies the boundary conditions and you can then describe how it evolves in time. The most effective way to do that is to decompose the initial wavefunction using a basis, then describe the time evolution of each individual basis function. Because I can give you an initial wavefunction without spherical symmetry, you better have basis functions with angular dependence. Meanwhile, if my initial wavefunction is spherically symmetric, it will *stay* spherically symmetric. For a more physical example, imagine solving a PDE describing the dynamics of a circular drum. The problem has obvious circular symmetry. However, if I beat the drum at time t = 0, the initial condition need not be circularly symmetric. So you need to have eigenfunctions that can resolve that asymmetry. Meanwhile, the spherical symmetry is why the *eigenvalues* of the Schrodinger equation (the energy levels) do *not* depend on the quantum number m. Generally, symmetry gives rise to degeneracy in the eigenvalues.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4469.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857} {"post_id":"vyjo6n","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"if the hydrogen atom is a spherically symmetric system how do we get wavefunctions which are not spherically symmetric?","c_root_id_A":"ig2v0gy","c_root_id_B":"ig2o5ew","created_at_utc_A":1657766973,"created_at_utc_B":1657763756,"score_A":16,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The eigenfunctions are *basis functions* used to describe any state that satisfies the Schrodinger equation. If your initial state has some finite angular momentum, this angular momentum breaks the naively obvious symmetry. Because you can have initial conditions without spherical symmetry (e.g. there\u2019s a preferred direction due to the angular momentum of the particle), you need basis functions that can represent that. Remember that ultimately, the Schrodinger equation describes time evolution of a wavefunction. I should be able to give you *any* initial wavefunction that satisfies the boundary conditions and you can then describe how it evolves in time. The most effective way to do that is to decompose the initial wavefunction using a basis, then describe the time evolution of each individual basis function. Because I can give you an initial wavefunction without spherical symmetry, you better have basis functions with angular dependence. Meanwhile, if my initial wavefunction is spherically symmetric, it will *stay* spherically symmetric. For a more physical example, imagine solving a PDE describing the dynamics of a circular drum. The problem has obvious circular symmetry. However, if I beat the drum at time t = 0, the initial condition need not be circularly symmetric. So you need to have eigenfunctions that can resolve that asymmetry. Meanwhile, the spherical symmetry is why the *eigenvalues* of the Schrodinger equation (the energy levels) do *not* depend on the quantum number m. Generally, symmetry gives rise to degeneracy in the eigenvalues.","human_ref_B":"Does it bother you that solutions of the classical version (two particles in an attractive 1\/r potential, i.e., \"the Kepler problem\" solved by Newton in the 17th century) are also not spherically symmetric?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3217.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"vdntvu","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"How can the universe be infinite? The universe has a known, finite, age of about 14.8 billion years. If it did not, at some point, expand infinitely fast (whatever that means) how can it be of infinite size?","c_root_id_A":"icl8m6l","c_root_id_B":"icl7m0k","created_at_utc_A":1655391928,"created_at_utc_B":1655391491,"score_A":41,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"At the time of the Big Bang, the Universe is presumed to have been infinitely *dense*, which isn't the same thing as infinitesimally small. So in this sense the expansion is not (or at least not necessarily) from having no size, to having an infinite size, but rather from an incredibly dense state to a progressively less dense one. As you rightly point out, it's an open question as to whether the universe is actually infinite in spatial extent, and it's likely to remain unresolved (since the best you can do is establish that the universe is at least larger than we are capable of observing).","human_ref_B":"The universe may have also been born infinite!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":437.0,"score_ratio":4.1} {"post_id":"xcvt69","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Is Brane theory still popular among the scientific community and is it only found in String theory based ideas? If it\u2019s not only found in conjunction with string theory. What other theories of Quantum gravity apply it?","c_root_id_A":"io82zpi","c_root_id_B":"io85ut8","created_at_utc_A":1663048493,"created_at_utc_B":1663050613,"score_A":7,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Are there any active string theorists on reddit?","human_ref_B":"The idea of extended objects like branes comes from string theory. Obviously sometimes the brane setting is simplified, like in the Randall Sundrum model, with respect to the equivalent one in string theory, where for consistency other ingredients must be present. But basically you can't do a theory of branes without doing a bit of string theory, because in some sense string theory is the consistent theory of any quantum extended object.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2120.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429} {"post_id":"u9m8ha","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Is it possible to drop thousands of quarter pound burgers from a cargo airplane without the burgers burning in the atmosphere? Assuming the parts of the burgers didn\u2019t fall apart","c_root_id_A":"i5sylrg","c_root_id_B":"i5sd4fs","created_at_utc_A":1650664491,"created_at_utc_B":1650655414,"score_A":47,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Here's something most people don't realise- **BURNING IN THE ATMOSPHERE ISN'T FROM FRICTION.** It's actually because of *adiabatic compression* of the air in front of the falling object, i.e. the volume shrinks rapidly but dq (change in *heat*) is zero, so temperature rises (see the first Master Equation of Thermodynamics, dU = Tds - pdV with dq=Tds). So it's really a matter of how quickly the pounds of meat are falling. Remember, people have jumped from the edge of space without burning...","human_ref_B":"Asteroids or spaceships only burn in the atmosphere due to their high speed of multiple thousand km\/h.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9077.0,"score_ratio":5.2222222222} {"post_id":"u9m8ha","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Is it possible to drop thousands of quarter pound burgers from a cargo airplane without the burgers burning in the atmosphere? Assuming the parts of the burgers didn\u2019t fall apart","c_root_id_A":"i5sv9ek","c_root_id_B":"i5sylrg","created_at_utc_A":1650663014,"created_at_utc_B":1650664491,"score_A":5,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"I'm pretty sure there is an xkcd for this.","human_ref_B":"Here's something most people don't realise- **BURNING IN THE ATMOSPHERE ISN'T FROM FRICTION.** It's actually because of *adiabatic compression* of the air in front of the falling object, i.e. the volume shrinks rapidly but dq (change in *heat*) is zero, so temperature rises (see the first Master Equation of Thermodynamics, dU = Tds - pdV with dq=Tds). So it's really a matter of how quickly the pounds of meat are falling. Remember, people have jumped from the edge of space without burning...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1477.0,"score_ratio":9.4} {"post_id":"u9m8ha","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Is it possible to drop thousands of quarter pound burgers from a cargo airplane without the burgers burning in the atmosphere? Assuming the parts of the burgers didn\u2019t fall apart","c_root_id_A":"i5sn0e0","c_root_id_B":"i5sylrg","created_at_utc_A":1650659457,"created_at_utc_B":1650664491,"score_A":3,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"You could easily do this, if it's from a cargo plane. They don't actually travel that high or fast. In fact, US military field rations (Meals Ready to Eat, or MREs) are routinely air-dropped. You can basically shove a pallet of them out the back of a plane, and they'll land safe and edible.","human_ref_B":"Here's something most people don't realise- **BURNING IN THE ATMOSPHERE ISN'T FROM FRICTION.** It's actually because of *adiabatic compression* of the air in front of the falling object, i.e. the volume shrinks rapidly but dq (change in *heat*) is zero, so temperature rises (see the first Master Equation of Thermodynamics, dU = Tds - pdV with dq=Tds). So it's really a matter of how quickly the pounds of meat are falling. Remember, people have jumped from the edge of space without burning...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5034.0,"score_ratio":15.6666666667} {"post_id":"u9m8ha","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Is it possible to drop thousands of quarter pound burgers from a cargo airplane without the burgers burning in the atmosphere? Assuming the parts of the burgers didn\u2019t fall apart","c_root_id_A":"i5sxl9d","c_root_id_B":"i5sylrg","created_at_utc_A":1650664046,"created_at_utc_B":1650664491,"score_A":2,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"Dont think cargo planes fly that hi. From space into atmo is where youll have problems.","human_ref_B":"Here's something most people don't realise- **BURNING IN THE ATMOSPHERE ISN'T FROM FRICTION.** It's actually because of *adiabatic compression* of the air in front of the falling object, i.e. the volume shrinks rapidly but dq (change in *heat*) is zero, so temperature rises (see the first Master Equation of Thermodynamics, dU = Tds - pdV with dq=Tds). So it's really a matter of how quickly the pounds of meat are falling. Remember, people have jumped from the edge of space without burning...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":445.0,"score_ratio":23.5} {"post_id":"u9m8ha","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Is it possible to drop thousands of quarter pound burgers from a cargo airplane without the burgers burning in the atmosphere? Assuming the parts of the burgers didn\u2019t fall apart","c_root_id_A":"i5sv9ek","c_root_id_B":"i5sn0e0","created_at_utc_A":1650663014,"created_at_utc_B":1650659457,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm pretty sure there is an xkcd for this.","human_ref_B":"You could easily do this, if it's from a cargo plane. They don't actually travel that high or fast. In fact, US military field rations (Meals Ready to Eat, or MREs) are routinely air-dropped. You can basically shove a pallet of them out the back of a plane, and they'll land safe and edible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3557.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"3fl9yz","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"So, I understand that Muons and Taus have some similar properties to Electrons. Ignoring their rapid decay times, would an electric circuit made of Muons\/Taus be able to do work proportional to the increase in mass each particle has from an Electron? Would it work at all? Why or why not?","c_root_id_A":"ctpvdiv","c_root_id_B":"ctq3zfc","created_at_utc_A":1438609635,"created_at_utc_B":1438623882,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You would probably need to make the circuit out if different materials. No one knows if muonic copper is a conductor.","human_ref_B":"The work that electrons do in circuits is not based on their kinetic energy (EK = 1\/2 m v^(2)) -- their mass is tiny, their velocities tiny as well, and they keep scattering -- but instead from the electrical potential energy (EP = q V) where q is the charge of the electron and V is the potential difference across the circuit component. Muons and Taus have the same electrical charge as an electron so would do the same amount of work given a muonic voltage source with the same potential difference.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14247.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"txpx5u","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"What is the (currently) most accepted solution the twin paradox? Any source explaining it is greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"i3n66ze","c_root_id_B":"i3n6614","created_at_utc_A":1649262122,"created_at_utc_B":1649262112,"score_A":90,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Special relativity. I\u2019m not being snarky, but the Twin Paradox isn\u2019t a real paradox in special relativity. It\u2019s just a seemingly paradoxical result, but one that is fully explained within the context of the theory. There\u2019s no actual problem that needs to be solved.","human_ref_B":"One of the twins is accelerating and thus is not in an inertial reference. Thus the two frames are not equivalent. The accelerating twin is younger.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10.0,"score_ratio":22.5} {"post_id":"txpx5u","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"What is the (currently) most accepted solution the twin paradox? Any source explaining it is greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"i3n9exw","c_root_id_B":"i3n6o0e","created_at_utc_A":1649263372,"created_at_utc_B":1649262298,"score_A":15,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"\"current\" as in for 100 years? there's no paradox, this is century old settled basics and homework level question today. every introductory text book explains it. here's an article where it's explained in simple terms http:\/\/rantonels.github.io\/twin-paradox-for-literal-children\/ and if you search reddit you'll find many posts doing the same. I've probably posted answers 50 times myself","human_ref_B":"What do you mean by solution? The twin \"paradox\" is a result of relativity, it's seemingly paradoxical, or non-intuitive, but it's facts. One twin leaves Earth going extremely fast, turns around and comes back, and they return younger than the twin that stayed behind. Weird, wacky, but true.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1074.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"txpx5u","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"What is the (currently) most accepted solution the twin paradox? Any source explaining it is greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"i3n6x68","c_root_id_B":"i3n9exw","created_at_utc_A":1649262393,"created_at_utc_B":1649263372,"score_A":4,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"it's just what will happen according to laws of physics. The twin that travels very quickly and comes back will have aged less than the one that stayed on earth. There is no paradox.","human_ref_B":"\"current\" as in for 100 years? there's no paradox, this is century old settled basics and homework level question today. every introductory text book explains it. here's an article where it's explained in simple terms http:\/\/rantonels.github.io\/twin-paradox-for-literal-children\/ and if you search reddit you'll find many posts doing the same. I've probably posted answers 50 times myself","labels":0,"seconds_difference":979.0,"score_ratio":3.75} {"post_id":"txpx5u","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"What is the (currently) most accepted solution the twin paradox? Any source explaining it is greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"i3n9exw","c_root_id_B":"i3n6614","created_at_utc_A":1649263372,"created_at_utc_B":1649262112,"score_A":15,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"\"current\" as in for 100 years? there's no paradox, this is century old settled basics and homework level question today. every introductory text book explains it. here's an article where it's explained in simple terms http:\/\/rantonels.github.io\/twin-paradox-for-literal-children\/ and if you search reddit you'll find many posts doing the same. I've probably posted answers 50 times myself","human_ref_B":"One of the twins is accelerating and thus is not in an inertial reference. Thus the two frames are not equivalent. The accelerating twin is younger.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1260.0,"score_ratio":3.75} {"post_id":"txpx5u","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"What is the (currently) most accepted solution the twin paradox? Any source explaining it is greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"i3n6o0e","c_root_id_B":"i3n6614","created_at_utc_A":1649262298,"created_at_utc_B":1649262112,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"What do you mean by solution? The twin \"paradox\" is a result of relativity, it's seemingly paradoxical, or non-intuitive, but it's facts. One twin leaves Earth going extremely fast, turns around and comes back, and they return younger than the twin that stayed behind. Weird, wacky, but true.","human_ref_B":"One of the twins is accelerating and thus is not in an inertial reference. Thus the two frames are not equivalent. The accelerating twin is younger.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":186.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"vjlf7d","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Why is it harder for gravity to pull lighter objects? Shouldn't it be easier for it to pull down something with small mass?","c_root_id_A":"idjlrg9","c_root_id_B":"idjmbxy","created_at_utc_A":1656068317,"created_at_utc_B":1656068736,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"That's actually a deep question, and the proper answer to this is beginning point of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. But even without relativity and using plain o'l Newtonian Mechanics we see that inertial mass and gravitational mass negate each other to the point acceleration under the force of gravity is independent of the mass of the body. Put more simply, mass in equal measure provides inertia, which is resistance to change in momentum, and acceleration felt by a gravitational field. Mathematically we can state the following for a mass m, subject to a uniform gravitational field g, and no other forces such as air resistance. F=ma. (General formula for net resultant force, where F is force, m mass, and a acceleration due to force) W=mg. ( Formula for weight, which the force acting on a object due to gravity, where W is weight, m is mass, g is acceleration due to gravity) Since net resultant force is due to gravity F=W mg=ma g=a The mass does not matter. We can readily use the same reasoning for non-uniform gravitational field but the same argument holds.","human_ref_B":"Gravity pulls everything at the same rate ( around 10 N\/KG) but the reason that lighter objects reach the ground slower is because of air resistance. Imagine a horse and a paper, go to a tower and throw off both of them from the said tower, surely the horse reaches the ground faster. But the reason for that is air resistance that affects paper more than it does on the horse Remember: gravity doesn't make exceptions.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":419.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"egq7jp","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How's being a physicist in greece? I'm from Spain and we use mostly the latin alphabet. As in, we use r for radius, h for height, etc. We also use greek letters for density(rho), general coefficients(mu), etc. Do you use it the same way in greece? Or do you have a different use?","c_root_id_A":"fc91hme","c_root_id_B":"fc8zlfn","created_at_utc_A":1577545498,"created_at_utc_B":1577544636,"score_A":16,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Yes we use the same things","human_ref_B":"donde estudias??","labels":1,"seconds_difference":862.0,"score_ratio":8.0} {"post_id":"rkd1iq","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Is it possible for cube shaped planets to exist?","c_root_id_A":"hp90pq8","c_root_id_B":"hp911jl","created_at_utc_A":1639969593,"created_at_utc_B":1639969758,"score_A":18,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"No.","human_ref_B":"Gravity helps forms planets. Gravity does not generally shape things into squares. At short distances it acts equally in all directions = round shapes. Tidal bulges can make things walnut shaped. Impacts can make things strange shapes. But cubes? What mechanism do you see acting?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":165.0,"score_ratio":2.0555555556} {"post_id":"rkd1iq","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Is it possible for cube shaped planets to exist?","c_root_id_A":"hp90pq8","c_root_id_B":"hp92pxq","created_at_utc_A":1639969593,"created_at_utc_B":1639970589,"score_A":18,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"No.","human_ref_B":"Even if a cube-shaped planet were to spring into existence, it would immediately begin to spheroidize. For all eight corners, the pressure on the material between the corner and center would be relatively large, driving that material to deform toward the shallower region under one of the six faces.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":996.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"rkd1iq","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Is it possible for cube shaped planets to exist?","c_root_id_A":"hp9m2i2","c_root_id_B":"hp90pq8","created_at_utc_A":1639981618,"created_at_utc_B":1639969593,"score_A":19,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Part of the definition of a planet is that it's so massive it collapses to a roughly ball shape under its own weight. So by definition such an object wouldn't be a planet.","human_ref_B":"No.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12025.0,"score_ratio":1.0555555556} {"post_id":"akykkl","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Why isn't there a 4\u03c0 in the denominator for Newtons Law of gravitation like there is in Coulomb's Law? I thought the force decreases proportional to 4\u03c0r^2 since it's the surface area of a sphere at distance r","c_root_id_A":"ef9grdz","c_root_id_B":"ef9gsxk","created_at_utc_A":1548771816,"created_at_utc_B":1548771844,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"In fact the version I learned just had a k in the numerator: F = k q1 q2\/r\\^2. It's only later that the connection was made between k and 4pi\\*\u03b5\\_0. I don't think Coulomb knew about the constant \u03b5\\_0.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d suspect historical reasons. The 4\u03c0 enter the game in the fundamental solution to the Laplace equation in three dimensions (with boundary condition \u03d5 \u2192 0 for large x): [; \\displaystyle \\Delta\\phi = \\delta(x) \\Leftrightarrow \\phi(x) = \\frac{1}{4\\pi \\, |x|};] This is effectively Gau\u00df law, the 4\u03c0 come from the surface area of the sphere. So it\u2019s desirable to have them there and not absorbed into the coupling constant. But the gravitational law is way older than the a bit more systematic vector calculus. So we just have to live with it\u2026","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"8btc29","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Why does the Pauli Exclusion Principle apply to fermions but not to bosons?","c_root_id_A":"dx9lbdm","c_root_id_B":"dx9gmo6","created_at_utc_A":1523569096,"created_at_utc_B":1523564862,"score_A":24,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Isn't it simply because we literally define them that way? **Bos**ons follow **Bose** statistics and **fermi**ons follow **Fermi** statistics. It just happens so both types of particles exist.","human_ref_B":"The real answer comes from quantum field theory. The operators that create bosonic particles commute with each other, while the operators that create fermionic particles anti-commute. This implies that bosonic wave functions are symmetric under the exchange of two particles, whereas fermionic wave functions are anti-symmetric under two particle exchange.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4234.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"8btc29","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Why does the Pauli Exclusion Principle apply to fermions but not to bosons?","c_root_id_A":"dx9lbdm","c_root_id_B":"dx9kqyw","created_at_utc_A":1523569096,"created_at_utc_B":1523568558,"score_A":24,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Isn't it simply because we literally define them that way? **Bos**ons follow **Bose** statistics and **fermi**ons follow **Fermi** statistics. It just happens so both types of particles exist.","human_ref_B":"I doubt you're going to get much of a satisfying answer. It's like asking why some particles have positive charges and some have negative. Because they do. Quantum mechanics says that if you're going to have classes of perfectly identical particles that cannot be distinguished from one another even in principle, then there is only two possible ways they could behave, either they have symmetric wavefunctions or antisymmetric wavefunctions, but nothing else (you wouldn't have a valid wavefunction) It turns out that our universe is filled with a variety of particles and rather than all of them taking the same option, some exhibit the first option, and we call them bosons, and others exhibit the second, and we call them fermions.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":538.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"fd8j1g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Do you think we throw too much at students at once when introducing them to quantum mechanics? I feel like most of the difficulty of introductory quantum mechanics comes from the notation and using math that the students have never seen before. I think students would overwhelmingly perform better in intro quantum if they could be introduced to all of that (e.g. bra-ket notation, operators, hermitian, etc.) prior to trying to apply them to physics. Do you agree? Do we throw too much at students too quickly? Sure, people manage to get through the courses, but I feel like few students actually understand the material because they're combatting with both the math and the physics simultaneously.","c_root_id_A":"fjg447s","c_root_id_B":"fjg25wx","created_at_utc_A":1583310604,"created_at_utc_B":1583308197,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"We were taught quantum physics the following way (I live in Europe btw): We first had an introductory course of modern physics. We learned about the history of quantum physics, the several observations that made classical physics incomplete. We were given the \"intuition\" behind important concepts. Then we had to take linear algebra and calculus. Only then we had a \"real\" quantum physics course. Our professor started by introducing us to the Dirac notation and spent literally half of the semester on maths. We were already familiar with every mathematical concept but he applied everything to quantum physics. After that, everything went smoothly, we already had some intuition if I may say and the maths were not a problem. It was a little boring to go through all the maths a second time but when I look back, I now see it was necessary. Love that teacher!","human_ref_B":"Whatever \"math methods\" class people have in their first quarter of upper division classes should be more than enough, mainly the linear algebra and complex functions. The math behind quantum is really not particularly difficult, and honestly in many ways is easier than other math. The states are all orthogonal, which makes things like evaluating expectation values easier. The primarily difficult thing about undergrad quantum is simply that the math is being leveraged in a very strange way, which can only really be helped by seeing it sooner. The sooner people just accept the basics of what operators are and how they behave, the better. QM is postulated, not derived, so the best you can do is dive in head first and try to get familiar with the material as fast as possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2407.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} {"post_id":"fd8j1g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Do you think we throw too much at students at once when introducing them to quantum mechanics? I feel like most of the difficulty of introductory quantum mechanics comes from the notation and using math that the students have never seen before. I think students would overwhelmingly perform better in intro quantum if they could be introduced to all of that (e.g. bra-ket notation, operators, hermitian, etc.) prior to trying to apply them to physics. Do you agree? Do we throw too much at students too quickly? Sure, people manage to get through the courses, but I feel like few students actually understand the material because they're combatting with both the math and the physics simultaneously.","c_root_id_A":"fjg447s","c_root_id_B":"fjg0835","created_at_utc_A":1583310604,"created_at_utc_B":1583306031,"score_A":11,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"We were taught quantum physics the following way (I live in Europe btw): We first had an introductory course of modern physics. We learned about the history of quantum physics, the several observations that made classical physics incomplete. We were given the \"intuition\" behind important concepts. Then we had to take linear algebra and calculus. Only then we had a \"real\" quantum physics course. Our professor started by introducing us to the Dirac notation and spent literally half of the semester on maths. We were already familiar with every mathematical concept but he applied everything to quantum physics. After that, everything went smoothly, we already had some intuition if I may say and the maths were not a problem. It was a little boring to go through all the maths a second time but when I look back, I now see it was necessary. Love that teacher!","human_ref_B":"I mean, the math is just linear. So you should have that under your belt by the time you get to Q1.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4573.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"fd8j1g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Do you think we throw too much at students at once when introducing them to quantum mechanics? I feel like most of the difficulty of introductory quantum mechanics comes from the notation and using math that the students have never seen before. I think students would overwhelmingly perform better in intro quantum if they could be introduced to all of that (e.g. bra-ket notation, operators, hermitian, etc.) prior to trying to apply them to physics. Do you agree? Do we throw too much at students too quickly? Sure, people manage to get through the courses, but I feel like few students actually understand the material because they're combatting with both the math and the physics simultaneously.","c_root_id_A":"fjfypnb","c_root_id_B":"fjg447s","created_at_utc_A":1583304479,"created_at_utc_B":1583310604,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Yes, I agree that quantum (as taught in the U.S. since about the 1980s) is too much too fast. Ideally students would learn about normal modes first, since that classical concept is central to the mathematics of introductory quantum mechanics. Instead, students are forced to learn both the weird-at-first-glance math of eigenfunctions and the mind-bending concepts of quantum mechanicas at the same time. The problem is how the curriculum fits together. If you want to get introductory quantum into a four-year college curriculum, you have to have prerequisites of introductory physics (usually both I -- year-long overview -- and II -- springs and optics). Then you need classical mechanics (to get the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations and -- yes -- Normal modes). Somewhere along the way you also need calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, and complex analysis. That's too many classes to reliably fit into the first 2-3 years of a four-year program, especially if you also want to fit in electronics, advanced lab, astrophysics, thermal physics. Solid-state physics is probably where normal modes could fit in as an ancillary topic -- but nowadays solid-state is all about the quantum, so that won't fly as a prerequisite to basic quantum. So normal modes kind of fall by the wayside.","human_ref_B":"We were taught quantum physics the following way (I live in Europe btw): We first had an introductory course of modern physics. We learned about the history of quantum physics, the several observations that made classical physics incomplete. We were given the \"intuition\" behind important concepts. Then we had to take linear algebra and calculus. Only then we had a \"real\" quantum physics course. Our professor started by introducing us to the Dirac notation and spent literally half of the semester on maths. We were already familiar with every mathematical concept but he applied everything to quantum physics. After that, everything went smoothly, we already had some intuition if I may say and the maths were not a problem. It was a little boring to go through all the maths a second time but when I look back, I now see it was necessary. Love that teacher!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6125.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"fd8j1g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Do you think we throw too much at students at once when introducing them to quantum mechanics? I feel like most of the difficulty of introductory quantum mechanics comes from the notation and using math that the students have never seen before. I think students would overwhelmingly perform better in intro quantum if they could be introduced to all of that (e.g. bra-ket notation, operators, hermitian, etc.) prior to trying to apply them to physics. Do you agree? Do we throw too much at students too quickly? Sure, people manage to get through the courses, but I feel like few students actually understand the material because they're combatting with both the math and the physics simultaneously.","c_root_id_A":"fjg25wx","c_root_id_B":"fjg0835","created_at_utc_A":1583308197,"created_at_utc_B":1583306031,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Whatever \"math methods\" class people have in their first quarter of upper division classes should be more than enough, mainly the linear algebra and complex functions. The math behind quantum is really not particularly difficult, and honestly in many ways is easier than other math. The states are all orthogonal, which makes things like evaluating expectation values easier. The primarily difficult thing about undergrad quantum is simply that the math is being leveraged in a very strange way, which can only really be helped by seeing it sooner. The sooner people just accept the basics of what operators are and how they behave, the better. QM is postulated, not derived, so the best you can do is dive in head first and try to get familiar with the material as fast as possible.","human_ref_B":"I mean, the math is just linear. So you should have that under your belt by the time you get to Q1.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2166.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"fd8j1g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Do you think we throw too much at students at once when introducing them to quantum mechanics? I feel like most of the difficulty of introductory quantum mechanics comes from the notation and using math that the students have never seen before. I think students would overwhelmingly perform better in intro quantum if they could be introduced to all of that (e.g. bra-ket notation, operators, hermitian, etc.) prior to trying to apply them to physics. Do you agree? Do we throw too much at students too quickly? Sure, people manage to get through the courses, but I feel like few students actually understand the material because they're combatting with both the math and the physics simultaneously.","c_root_id_A":"fjg25wx","c_root_id_B":"fjfypnb","created_at_utc_A":1583308197,"created_at_utc_B":1583304479,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Whatever \"math methods\" class people have in their first quarter of upper division classes should be more than enough, mainly the linear algebra and complex functions. The math behind quantum is really not particularly difficult, and honestly in many ways is easier than other math. The states are all orthogonal, which makes things like evaluating expectation values easier. The primarily difficult thing about undergrad quantum is simply that the math is being leveraged in a very strange way, which can only really be helped by seeing it sooner. The sooner people just accept the basics of what operators are and how they behave, the better. QM is postulated, not derived, so the best you can do is dive in head first and try to get familiar with the material as fast as possible.","human_ref_B":"Yes, I agree that quantum (as taught in the U.S. since about the 1980s) is too much too fast. Ideally students would learn about normal modes first, since that classical concept is central to the mathematics of introductory quantum mechanics. Instead, students are forced to learn both the weird-at-first-glance math of eigenfunctions and the mind-bending concepts of quantum mechanicas at the same time. The problem is how the curriculum fits together. If you want to get introductory quantum into a four-year college curriculum, you have to have prerequisites of introductory physics (usually both I -- year-long overview -- and II -- springs and optics). Then you need classical mechanics (to get the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations and -- yes -- Normal modes). Somewhere along the way you also need calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, and complex analysis. That's too many classes to reliably fit into the first 2-3 years of a four-year program, especially if you also want to fit in electronics, advanced lab, astrophysics, thermal physics. Solid-state physics is probably where normal modes could fit in as an ancillary topic -- but nowadays solid-state is all about the quantum, so that won't fly as a prerequisite to basic quantum. So normal modes kind of fall by the wayside.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3718.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"fd8j1g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Do you think we throw too much at students at once when introducing them to quantum mechanics? I feel like most of the difficulty of introductory quantum mechanics comes from the notation and using math that the students have never seen before. I think students would overwhelmingly perform better in intro quantum if they could be introduced to all of that (e.g. bra-ket notation, operators, hermitian, etc.) prior to trying to apply them to physics. Do you agree? Do we throw too much at students too quickly? Sure, people manage to get through the courses, but I feel like few students actually understand the material because they're combatting with both the math and the physics simultaneously.","c_root_id_A":"fjg0835","c_root_id_B":"fjfypnb","created_at_utc_A":1583306031,"created_at_utc_B":1583304479,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I mean, the math is just linear. So you should have that under your belt by the time you get to Q1.","human_ref_B":"Yes, I agree that quantum (as taught in the U.S. since about the 1980s) is too much too fast. Ideally students would learn about normal modes first, since that classical concept is central to the mathematics of introductory quantum mechanics. Instead, students are forced to learn both the weird-at-first-glance math of eigenfunctions and the mind-bending concepts of quantum mechanicas at the same time. The problem is how the curriculum fits together. If you want to get introductory quantum into a four-year college curriculum, you have to have prerequisites of introductory physics (usually both I -- year-long overview -- and II -- springs and optics). Then you need classical mechanics (to get the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations and -- yes -- Normal modes). Somewhere along the way you also need calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, and complex analysis. That's too many classes to reliably fit into the first 2-3 years of a four-year program, especially if you also want to fit in electronics, advanced lab, astrophysics, thermal physics. Solid-state physics is probably where normal modes could fit in as an ancillary topic -- but nowadays solid-state is all about the quantum, so that won't fly as a prerequisite to basic quantum. So normal modes kind of fall by the wayside.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1552.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"fd8j1g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Do you think we throw too much at students at once when introducing them to quantum mechanics? I feel like most of the difficulty of introductory quantum mechanics comes from the notation and using math that the students have never seen before. I think students would overwhelmingly perform better in intro quantum if they could be introduced to all of that (e.g. bra-ket notation, operators, hermitian, etc.) prior to trying to apply them to physics. Do you agree? Do we throw too much at students too quickly? Sure, people manage to get through the courses, but I feel like few students actually understand the material because they're combatting with both the math and the physics simultaneously.","c_root_id_A":"fjgaj0f","c_root_id_B":"fjfypnb","created_at_utc_A":1583319455,"created_at_utc_B":1583304479,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'd argue that the standard approach focuses too much on calculation and solving specific problems via some special functions which isn't too illuminating... I think in general students would be better off if one focused more on trying to understand the underlying structure of QM. Personally one of the better books attempting this is the recently released one by Peter Woit.","human_ref_B":"Yes, I agree that quantum (as taught in the U.S. since about the 1980s) is too much too fast. Ideally students would learn about normal modes first, since that classical concept is central to the mathematics of introductory quantum mechanics. Instead, students are forced to learn both the weird-at-first-glance math of eigenfunctions and the mind-bending concepts of quantum mechanicas at the same time. The problem is how the curriculum fits together. If you want to get introductory quantum into a four-year college curriculum, you have to have prerequisites of introductory physics (usually both I -- year-long overview -- and II -- springs and optics). Then you need classical mechanics (to get the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations and -- yes -- Normal modes). Somewhere along the way you also need calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, and complex analysis. That's too many classes to reliably fit into the first 2-3 years of a four-year program, especially if you also want to fit in electronics, advanced lab, astrophysics, thermal physics. Solid-state physics is probably where normal modes could fit in as an ancillary topic -- but nowadays solid-state is all about the quantum, so that won't fly as a prerequisite to basic quantum. So normal modes kind of fall by the wayside.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14976.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"fd8j1g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Do you think we throw too much at students at once when introducing them to quantum mechanics? I feel like most of the difficulty of introductory quantum mechanics comes from the notation and using math that the students have never seen before. I think students would overwhelmingly perform better in intro quantum if they could be introduced to all of that (e.g. bra-ket notation, operators, hermitian, etc.) prior to trying to apply them to physics. Do you agree? Do we throw too much at students too quickly? Sure, people manage to get through the courses, but I feel like few students actually understand the material because they're combatting with both the math and the physics simultaneously.","c_root_id_A":"fjg5ket","c_root_id_B":"fjgaj0f","created_at_utc_A":1583312509,"created_at_utc_B":1583319455,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The big thing for me is that I didn't learn Classical mechanics until *after* Quantum. The Shrodinger equation makes a lot more sense if you've already been dealing with Hamiltonians for a while.","human_ref_B":"I'd argue that the standard approach focuses too much on calculation and solving specific problems via some special functions which isn't too illuminating... I think in general students would be better off if one focused more on trying to understand the underlying structure of QM. Personally one of the better books attempting this is the recently released one by Peter Woit.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6946.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"fd8j1g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Do you think we throw too much at students at once when introducing them to quantum mechanics? I feel like most of the difficulty of introductory quantum mechanics comes from the notation and using math that the students have never seen before. I think students would overwhelmingly perform better in intro quantum if they could be introduced to all of that (e.g. bra-ket notation, operators, hermitian, etc.) prior to trying to apply them to physics. Do you agree? Do we throw too much at students too quickly? Sure, people manage to get through the courses, but I feel like few students actually understand the material because they're combatting with both the math and the physics simultaneously.","c_root_id_A":"fjg7x10","c_root_id_B":"fjgaj0f","created_at_utc_A":1583315813,"created_at_utc_B":1583319455,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I never made an attempt to learn quantum mechanics prior to learning about quantum computing. I reckon that's the place to start. It's fantastic, because you're dealing with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, and you can get your head around all the quantum weirdness (superpositions, measurement operators, entanglement &c.) without having to simultaneously deal with differential equations, unbounded operators and all that.","human_ref_B":"I'd argue that the standard approach focuses too much on calculation and solving specific problems via some special functions which isn't too illuminating... I think in general students would be better off if one focused more on trying to understand the underlying structure of QM. Personally one of the better books attempting this is the recently released one by Peter Woit.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3642.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"y0njze","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Why does taking further derivatives of position cause it to lose its relativity? We know that velocity (the derivative of position) can only be measured relatively. Inertial reference frames prove that there is no way to know whether you are moving or the world around you is. However acceleration does not have this behaviour. Almost every solution to the twins paradox I find has its proposed solution in the fact that, while velocities may be relative, acceleration is absolute. Only the rocket is accelerating\u2014since the person in the rocket will feel a force and the earth twin won't. My question is why does taking one derivative of position cause it to behave relativistically, but taking a further derivative leads it to become absolute? And are there other measurements in physics where there is a specific derivation threshold until something becomes absolute? Perhaps the 31st octollionth derivative of... idk.. voltage. Causes it to behave differently?","c_root_id_A":"irtfl36","c_root_id_B":"irt6ucz","created_at_utc_A":1665440207,"created_at_utc_B":1665436379,"score_A":41,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"The mathematical reason is that you have to distinguish 4-vectors and Lorentz scalars. Lorentz scalars are *invariant*, which means they do not change with reference frame: they are absolute. Position, velocity, and acceleration all have 4-vectors associated with them. These 4-vectors change with reference frame. However, one can show that the dot product of any two 4-vectors is a Lorentz invariant. This means that each 4-vector has a Lorentz invariant associated with it, every 4-vector has a magnitude that can be calculated by taking the dot product of itself with itself. It turns out that: The magnitude of the 4-position is the spacetime interval (related to the proper time) The magnitude of the 4-velocity is the speed of light (not useful) The magnitude of the 4-acceleration is the proper acceleration. So really, the odd one out is the 4-velocity. Ultimately, it comes from the fact that taking the derivative of the 4-position with respect to proper time gives you the unit tangent vector of the world line.","human_ref_B":"I would pose the exact opposite -- albiet easier -- question. If we presume that force and acceleration are absolute (let us not consider GR interpretation questions right now), should velocity be absolute as well? The answer becomes.. fairly easily.. well no. We can say v2-v1 = integral of a from t1 to t2. or v(t) = int(a(t) dt, 0, t)+v0. If we do the indefinite integral we just end up with an integration constant, not tied down to anything. So of course it has to be relative. Obviously position has the same. And from this perspective, plenty of other examples pop out, with potentials defined as F = -grad U being first on the list. We don't even need to go too many on voltage... just one (getting to Electric field) is enough. Gravitational force? Absolute. Gravitational potential? relative.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3828.0,"score_ratio":3.1538461538} {"post_id":"y0njze","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Why does taking further derivatives of position cause it to lose its relativity? We know that velocity (the derivative of position) can only be measured relatively. Inertial reference frames prove that there is no way to know whether you are moving or the world around you is. However acceleration does not have this behaviour. Almost every solution to the twins paradox I find has its proposed solution in the fact that, while velocities may be relative, acceleration is absolute. Only the rocket is accelerating\u2014since the person in the rocket will feel a force and the earth twin won't. My question is why does taking one derivative of position cause it to behave relativistically, but taking a further derivative leads it to become absolute? And are there other measurements in physics where there is a specific derivation threshold until something becomes absolute? Perhaps the 31st octollionth derivative of... idk.. voltage. Causes it to behave differently?","c_root_id_A":"irtfl36","c_root_id_B":"irsu9gj","created_at_utc_A":1665440207,"created_at_utc_B":1665431192,"score_A":41,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The mathematical reason is that you have to distinguish 4-vectors and Lorentz scalars. Lorentz scalars are *invariant*, which means they do not change with reference frame: they are absolute. Position, velocity, and acceleration all have 4-vectors associated with them. These 4-vectors change with reference frame. However, one can show that the dot product of any two 4-vectors is a Lorentz invariant. This means that each 4-vector has a Lorentz invariant associated with it, every 4-vector has a magnitude that can be calculated by taking the dot product of itself with itself. It turns out that: The magnitude of the 4-position is the spacetime interval (related to the proper time) The magnitude of the 4-velocity is the speed of light (not useful) The magnitude of the 4-acceleration is the proper acceleration. So really, the odd one out is the 4-velocity. Ultimately, it comes from the fact that taking the derivative of the 4-position with respect to proper time gives you the unit tangent vector of the world line.","human_ref_B":"Lots of good, relevant discussion at Stack Exchange, especially these answers and these and these.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9015.0,"score_ratio":20.5} {"post_id":"y0njze","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Why does taking further derivatives of position cause it to lose its relativity? We know that velocity (the derivative of position) can only be measured relatively. Inertial reference frames prove that there is no way to know whether you are moving or the world around you is. However acceleration does not have this behaviour. Almost every solution to the twins paradox I find has its proposed solution in the fact that, while velocities may be relative, acceleration is absolute. Only the rocket is accelerating\u2014since the person in the rocket will feel a force and the earth twin won't. My question is why does taking one derivative of position cause it to behave relativistically, but taking a further derivative leads it to become absolute? And are there other measurements in physics where there is a specific derivation threshold until something becomes absolute? Perhaps the 31st octollionth derivative of... idk.. voltage. Causes it to behave differently?","c_root_id_A":"irt6ucz","c_root_id_B":"irsu9gj","created_at_utc_A":1665436379,"created_at_utc_B":1665431192,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I would pose the exact opposite -- albiet easier -- question. If we presume that force and acceleration are absolute (let us not consider GR interpretation questions right now), should velocity be absolute as well? The answer becomes.. fairly easily.. well no. We can say v2-v1 = integral of a from t1 to t2. or v(t) = int(a(t) dt, 0, t)+v0. If we do the indefinite integral we just end up with an integration constant, not tied down to anything. So of course it has to be relative. Obviously position has the same. And from this perspective, plenty of other examples pop out, with potentials defined as F = -grad U being first on the list. We don't even need to go too many on voltage... just one (getting to Electric field) is enough. Gravitational force? Absolute. Gravitational potential? relative.","human_ref_B":"Lots of good, relevant discussion at Stack Exchange, especially these answers and these and these.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5187.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"phphqg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Physics researcher what does it take to do research high level of intelligence or hard work","c_root_id_A":"hbk1mi7","c_root_id_B":"hbkk0rc","created_at_utc_A":1630753911,"created_at_utc_B":1630764962,"score_A":10,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"Both. Though \"intelligence\" in this case is feild specfic. You don't need to be a maths genius to do experimental phsyics, but you do for theortical, but then you don't need practical skills for theortical like you do for experimental. Source - PhD in physics. I did often do 12 hour days during my PhD though, and that's common","human_ref_B":"I personally would argue that these things are not mutually exclusive and that intelligence largely IS the result of hard work. No one is born knowing how to compute cross sections or write code. Some people have better teachers and other people have no teachers at all. Regardless, learning any new skill takes a lot of work. The myth of the \u201clone genius\u201d is pervasive in physics, but it 1) historically isn\u2019t all that correct, and 2) certainly is not how research is done today. Even in instances where a single person really did advance a field of physics, it was never on the first day they showed up, it was only after years and years of hard work. The only \u201cskill\u201d that I would argue actually does set one person apart from others is their ability to be creative and think outside the box, but even that can be a learned skill which you can hone.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11051.0,"score_ratio":5.4} {"post_id":"phphqg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Physics researcher what does it take to do research high level of intelligence or hard work","c_root_id_A":"hbkcpjb","c_root_id_B":"hbkk0rc","created_at_utc_A":1630761229,"created_at_utc_B":1630764962,"score_A":10,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"I'd say hard work. In my cohort there are a few very bright individuals, but most of us are just average people that put a lot of hard work into understanding physics, because we love it. While other people used their time to learn business management, carpentry, or whatever their skill is, we used our time to study physics.","human_ref_B":"I personally would argue that these things are not mutually exclusive and that intelligence largely IS the result of hard work. No one is born knowing how to compute cross sections or write code. Some people have better teachers and other people have no teachers at all. Regardless, learning any new skill takes a lot of work. The myth of the \u201clone genius\u201d is pervasive in physics, but it 1) historically isn\u2019t all that correct, and 2) certainly is not how research is done today. Even in instances where a single person really did advance a field of physics, it was never on the first day they showed up, it was only after years and years of hard work. The only \u201cskill\u201d that I would argue actually does set one person apart from others is their ability to be creative and think outside the box, but even that can be a learned skill which you can hone.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3733.0,"score_ratio":5.4} {"post_id":"phphqg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Physics researcher what does it take to do research high level of intelligence or hard work","c_root_id_A":"hbk7zcj","c_root_id_B":"hbkk0rc","created_at_utc_A":1630758386,"created_at_utc_B":1630764962,"score_A":6,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"I am not that smart, but I work my ass off. It makes my research go a little different. I seem to always be proving or disproving other people's ideas, sometimes I refine them too.","human_ref_B":"I personally would argue that these things are not mutually exclusive and that intelligence largely IS the result of hard work. No one is born knowing how to compute cross sections or write code. Some people have better teachers and other people have no teachers at all. Regardless, learning any new skill takes a lot of work. The myth of the \u201clone genius\u201d is pervasive in physics, but it 1) historically isn\u2019t all that correct, and 2) certainly is not how research is done today. Even in instances where a single person really did advance a field of physics, it was never on the first day they showed up, it was only after years and years of hard work. The only \u201cskill\u201d that I would argue actually does set one person apart from others is their ability to be creative and think outside the box, but even that can be a learned skill which you can hone.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6576.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"phphqg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Physics researcher what does it take to do research high level of intelligence or hard work","c_root_id_A":"hbk7zcj","c_root_id_B":"hbkcpjb","created_at_utc_A":1630758386,"created_at_utc_B":1630761229,"score_A":6,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I am not that smart, but I work my ass off. It makes my research go a little different. I seem to always be proving or disproving other people's ideas, sometimes I refine them too.","human_ref_B":"I'd say hard work. In my cohort there are a few very bright individuals, but most of us are just average people that put a lot of hard work into understanding physics, because we love it. While other people used their time to learn business management, carpentry, or whatever their skill is, we used our time to study physics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2843.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"phphqg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Physics researcher what does it take to do research high level of intelligence or hard work","c_root_id_A":"hbojq3g","c_root_id_B":"hbmmrlu","created_at_utc_A":1630846381,"created_at_utc_B":1630799440,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Several of the replies here are \"you don't need to be that smart\", however statistically that's simply not true. Of course you can do well in a PhD program and not feel smart compared to the rest of your cohort, but there's already a huge selection bias at that point. Not everyone has the capacity to finish an undergrad degree in physics, let alone with a good enough GPA to get into grad school, and then to pass quals. At the same time, it's kind of a pointless thing to worry about, because people tend to gravitate to the things they have an aptitude for. If you enjoy studying and thinking about physics, then chances are pretty good that it's something you can do well at. Of course, you might not think that's true, and that's where the hard work comes in, because whatever your base talent is you're always going to hit a point where things get difficult.","human_ref_B":"You need both. Some have more of one or the other. It varies! Sometimes extreme intelligence makes up for lower discipline, or vice-versa.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":46941.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"phphqg","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Physics researcher what does it take to do research high level of intelligence or hard work","c_root_id_A":"hbmuwvb","c_root_id_B":"hbojq3g","created_at_utc_A":1630803641,"created_at_utc_B":1630846381,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I love beating dead horses so I'll add on and say that hard work is more important. I think intelligence might be important but honestly it's hard to measure intelligence but I can sure as hell tell when someone puts in the effort to understand something. The people that I've met in my life who I would consider the \"most intelligent\", whatever that means, are also the ones who spend most of their time reading about physics and learning new things.","human_ref_B":"Several of the replies here are \"you don't need to be that smart\", however statistically that's simply not true. Of course you can do well in a PhD program and not feel smart compared to the rest of your cohort, but there's already a huge selection bias at that point. Not everyone has the capacity to finish an undergrad degree in physics, let alone with a good enough GPA to get into grad school, and then to pass quals. At the same time, it's kind of a pointless thing to worry about, because people tend to gravitate to the things they have an aptitude for. If you enjoy studying and thinking about physics, then chances are pretty good that it's something you can do well at. Of course, you might not think that's true, and that's where the hard work comes in, because whatever your base talent is you're always going to hit a point where things get difficult.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":42740.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zngs63","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Are there any correlations between the periodic table \/ chemistry and the colors of elements? For example: water is clear, gold is yellow, silver is gray, and copper is brown.","c_root_id_A":"j0hs8zw","c_root_id_B":"j0h8fcz","created_at_utc_A":1671217597,"created_at_utc_B":1671209837,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Conditions for a metal to appear as \"having a color\" are as follows: 1. Adequate external electronic configuration s1d10 \u2194 s 2d9 (group 11, IB) 2. Sublevels s and d close enough to allow transition s1d10 \u2194 s2d9 to occur significantly (Cu, Au) \\*\"Why Gold and Copper Are Colored but Silver Is Not\", Ariel H. Guerrero,H\u00e9ctor J. Fasoli, and Jos\u00e9 Luis Costa, JCE0299 p200. so first of all the electronic transition has to be possible, and if possible, the probability has to be high enough. Probability is dictated by the distance in energy between the levels. Edit: this is for elemental metals, obviously. In case of compounds it is much more complicated than that.","human_ref_B":"I have always wondered about the form of the periodic table and how fixed it is. It has elements grouped in a specific pattern. I'm curious if a sufficiently advanced alien species could recognize the pattern and be able to fill it in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7760.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"zngs63","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Are there any correlations between the periodic table \/ chemistry and the colors of elements? For example: water is clear, gold is yellow, silver is gray, and copper is brown.","c_root_id_A":"j0hnqx7","c_root_id_B":"j0hs8zw","created_at_utc_A":1671215796,"created_at_utc_B":1671217597,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"As an aside, to first order, all metals are \"silver\"; this is a result of the many free electrons provided by the metallic bond, which can reemit a broad range of frequencies without selective absorption. The outcome is generally indiscriminate reflection (at least in the visible range), which looks white or gray to us. Gold and copper in particular are interesting exceptions to this broad tendency.","human_ref_B":"Conditions for a metal to appear as \"having a color\" are as follows: 1. Adequate external electronic configuration s1d10 \u2194 s 2d9 (group 11, IB) 2. Sublevels s and d close enough to allow transition s1d10 \u2194 s2d9 to occur significantly (Cu, Au) \\*\"Why Gold and Copper Are Colored but Silver Is Not\", Ariel H. Guerrero,H\u00e9ctor J. Fasoli, and Jos\u00e9 Luis Costa, JCE0299 p200. so first of all the electronic transition has to be possible, and if possible, the probability has to be high enough. Probability is dictated by the distance in energy between the levels. Edit: this is for elemental metals, obviously. In case of compounds it is much more complicated than that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1801.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"ccvhh1","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I\u2019ve heard that light is both a wave and particle, and that this is some kind of great paradox, but doesn\u2019t that just mean light is waves composed of particles, like an ocean wave is composed of water molecules? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"etpkhmu","c_root_id_B":"etprchy","created_at_utc_A":1563057892,"created_at_utc_B":1563062729,"score_A":11,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"No, it is both due to 1) Diffraction grating experiments: *wave* 2) Photoelectric effect experiments: *particle*. it is not a paradox it is wave -particle *duality*","human_ref_B":"The difference is: water waves require a medium (the water) to exist, since they are comprised of the motion of that matter. Same for sound waves, etc.\u2014 they require a medium to travel. Light does not require a medium to travel through, as in light can propagate perfectly fine through empty space, so saying the waves are comprised of the motion of particles is not applicable here. Rather, there are contexts where light behaves as a wave\u2014displaying interference, for example. In other situations, it behaves as a particle, for example knocking off electrons from metals. These are (roughly) the different experiments the other poster is referring to.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4837.0,"score_ratio":3.1818181818} {"post_id":"ccvhh1","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I\u2019ve heard that light is both a wave and particle, and that this is some kind of great paradox, but doesn\u2019t that just mean light is waves composed of particles, like an ocean wave is composed of water molecules? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"etq9tw9","c_root_id_B":"etpkhmu","created_at_utc_A":1563077109,"created_at_utc_B":1563057892,"score_A":19,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Despite the comments saying that this is no longer a paradox, there's still a problem here that's at the heart of quantum mechanics, called the measurement problem. It's not hard to get used to the idea that light can behave as a wave or as a particle depending on how you observe (measure) it. But, a problem arises in the switch between wave and particle behavior. For example, in the double slit experiment, it can be shown that individual particles, like photons or electrons (and even much bigger particles), can travel through two slits simultaneously and interfere with themselves. In this case, they're acting like a wave that is spread out through space - waves can interfere with themselves, there's no problem there. But when that wave reaches the detector screen on the other side of the slits, it interacts at a single point, like a particle. A single particle doesn't produce the spread-out pattern you'd expect from a wave hitting the detector. This is where the \"quanta\" in \"quantum\" comes from: energy is transferred in discrete \"packets\", it can't be divided up indefinitely. The problem with this is on a superficial analysis, the wave seems to go from being spread out, to instantly collapsing (faster than the speed of light) to a single point where it hits the detector. This is called \"wave collapse.\" The measurement problem is the question of how this wave collapse happens, or even whether it happens. It's called the measurement problem because this apparent switch between spread-out waves and localized particles happens when you try to interact with, i.e. measure, a quantum object. Wave collapse and the measurement problem is problematic enough that it has led to several competing \"interpretations\" of quantum mechanics - ways of interpreting the equations and experiments to explain what's happening in a more satisfactory way than saying \"...and then this wave instantly sucks itself in from all over the place to interact at a single point.\" Anyone trying to explain how this \"actually\" works is necessarily picking a particular interpretation with which to do that. Another approach is to ignore interpretations, and just treat the mathematics as the entire picture of what happens, saying that it can't be explained \"intuitively.\"","human_ref_B":"No, it is both due to 1) Diffraction grating experiments: *wave* 2) Photoelectric effect experiments: *particle*. it is not a paradox it is wave -particle *duality*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19217.0,"score_ratio":1.7272727273} {"post_id":"ccvhh1","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I\u2019ve heard that light is both a wave and particle, and that this is some kind of great paradox, but doesn\u2019t that just mean light is waves composed of particles, like an ocean wave is composed of water molecules? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"etq2g7y","c_root_id_B":"etq9tw9","created_at_utc_A":1563070742,"created_at_utc_B":1563077109,"score_A":8,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"I just want to add briefly to dcnairb's answer. The weird (and actually fairly deep & powerful) thing is that we're not saying light *is* a wave and a particle, just that it acts like one or the other in certain conditions. The wave model and particle model explain different behaviours, but neither of them is a comment about what light 'actually is'. Most science is less concerned with 'what is this thing, actually?' and more concerned with 'how can we understand this thing in a way that's useful?'. This is why we talk about the 'wave model' or 'particle model' for light, or the 'Bohr model' of the atom, or whatever. Not that these are descriptions of the reality of the universe, but that they are useful ways to model the behaviours we see the universe exhibit.","human_ref_B":"Despite the comments saying that this is no longer a paradox, there's still a problem here that's at the heart of quantum mechanics, called the measurement problem. It's not hard to get used to the idea that light can behave as a wave or as a particle depending on how you observe (measure) it. But, a problem arises in the switch between wave and particle behavior. For example, in the double slit experiment, it can be shown that individual particles, like photons or electrons (and even much bigger particles), can travel through two slits simultaneously and interfere with themselves. In this case, they're acting like a wave that is spread out through space - waves can interfere with themselves, there's no problem there. But when that wave reaches the detector screen on the other side of the slits, it interacts at a single point, like a particle. A single particle doesn't produce the spread-out pattern you'd expect from a wave hitting the detector. This is where the \"quanta\" in \"quantum\" comes from: energy is transferred in discrete \"packets\", it can't be divided up indefinitely. The problem with this is on a superficial analysis, the wave seems to go from being spread out, to instantly collapsing (faster than the speed of light) to a single point where it hits the detector. This is called \"wave collapse.\" The measurement problem is the question of how this wave collapse happens, or even whether it happens. It's called the measurement problem because this apparent switch between spread-out waves and localized particles happens when you try to interact with, i.e. measure, a quantum object. Wave collapse and the measurement problem is problematic enough that it has led to several competing \"interpretations\" of quantum mechanics - ways of interpreting the equations and experiments to explain what's happening in a more satisfactory way than saying \"...and then this wave instantly sucks itself in from all over the place to interact at a single point.\" Anyone trying to explain how this \"actually\" works is necessarily picking a particular interpretation with which to do that. Another approach is to ignore interpretations, and just treat the mathematics as the entire picture of what happens, saying that it can't be explained \"intuitively.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6367.0,"score_ratio":2.375} {"post_id":"ccvhh1","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I\u2019ve heard that light is both a wave and particle, and that this is some kind of great paradox, but doesn\u2019t that just mean light is waves composed of particles, like an ocean wave is composed of water molecules? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"etq9tw9","c_root_id_B":"etq3et8","created_at_utc_A":1563077109,"created_at_utc_B":1563071523,"score_A":19,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Despite the comments saying that this is no longer a paradox, there's still a problem here that's at the heart of quantum mechanics, called the measurement problem. It's not hard to get used to the idea that light can behave as a wave or as a particle depending on how you observe (measure) it. But, a problem arises in the switch between wave and particle behavior. For example, in the double slit experiment, it can be shown that individual particles, like photons or electrons (and even much bigger particles), can travel through two slits simultaneously and interfere with themselves. In this case, they're acting like a wave that is spread out through space - waves can interfere with themselves, there's no problem there. But when that wave reaches the detector screen on the other side of the slits, it interacts at a single point, like a particle. A single particle doesn't produce the spread-out pattern you'd expect from a wave hitting the detector. This is where the \"quanta\" in \"quantum\" comes from: energy is transferred in discrete \"packets\", it can't be divided up indefinitely. The problem with this is on a superficial analysis, the wave seems to go from being spread out, to instantly collapsing (faster than the speed of light) to a single point where it hits the detector. This is called \"wave collapse.\" The measurement problem is the question of how this wave collapse happens, or even whether it happens. It's called the measurement problem because this apparent switch between spread-out waves and localized particles happens when you try to interact with, i.e. measure, a quantum object. Wave collapse and the measurement problem is problematic enough that it has led to several competing \"interpretations\" of quantum mechanics - ways of interpreting the equations and experiments to explain what's happening in a more satisfactory way than saying \"...and then this wave instantly sucks itself in from all over the place to interact at a single point.\" Anyone trying to explain how this \"actually\" works is necessarily picking a particular interpretation with which to do that. Another approach is to ignore interpretations, and just treat the mathematics as the entire picture of what happens, saying that it can't be explained \"intuitively.\"","human_ref_B":"No, rather the \"particles\" are simply bits of a wave. Wave-particle duality is a concept that causes nore trouble than it's worth. It runs into problems when you ask what it actually is. On the other hand, quantum field theory tells us that particles are just energy in quantum fields, which fill up space. In this case, the field is like the ocean (though it isn't made up of a water-molecule-equivalent), and the particles are simply waves that are bunched up in a small enough space.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5586.0,"score_ratio":9.5} {"post_id":"ccvhh1","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I\u2019ve heard that light is both a wave and particle, and that this is some kind of great paradox, but doesn\u2019t that just mean light is waves composed of particles, like an ocean wave is composed of water molecules? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"etq8v5m","c_root_id_B":"etq9tw9","created_at_utc_A":1563076237,"created_at_utc_B":1563077109,"score_A":2,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"watch this!","human_ref_B":"Despite the comments saying that this is no longer a paradox, there's still a problem here that's at the heart of quantum mechanics, called the measurement problem. It's not hard to get used to the idea that light can behave as a wave or as a particle depending on how you observe (measure) it. But, a problem arises in the switch between wave and particle behavior. For example, in the double slit experiment, it can be shown that individual particles, like photons or electrons (and even much bigger particles), can travel through two slits simultaneously and interfere with themselves. In this case, they're acting like a wave that is spread out through space - waves can interfere with themselves, there's no problem there. But when that wave reaches the detector screen on the other side of the slits, it interacts at a single point, like a particle. A single particle doesn't produce the spread-out pattern you'd expect from a wave hitting the detector. This is where the \"quanta\" in \"quantum\" comes from: energy is transferred in discrete \"packets\", it can't be divided up indefinitely. The problem with this is on a superficial analysis, the wave seems to go from being spread out, to instantly collapsing (faster than the speed of light) to a single point where it hits the detector. This is called \"wave collapse.\" The measurement problem is the question of how this wave collapse happens, or even whether it happens. It's called the measurement problem because this apparent switch between spread-out waves and localized particles happens when you try to interact with, i.e. measure, a quantum object. Wave collapse and the measurement problem is problematic enough that it has led to several competing \"interpretations\" of quantum mechanics - ways of interpreting the equations and experiments to explain what's happening in a more satisfactory way than saying \"...and then this wave instantly sucks itself in from all over the place to interact at a single point.\" Anyone trying to explain how this \"actually\" works is necessarily picking a particular interpretation with which to do that. Another approach is to ignore interpretations, and just treat the mathematics as the entire picture of what happens, saying that it can't be explained \"intuitively.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":872.0,"score_ratio":9.5} {"post_id":"ccvhh1","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I\u2019ve heard that light is both a wave and particle, and that this is some kind of great paradox, but doesn\u2019t that just mean light is waves composed of particles, like an ocean wave is composed of water molecules? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"etqbzyr","c_root_id_B":"etqacpx","created_at_utc_A":1563079205,"created_at_utc_B":1563077600,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don't know why a whole new word wasn't used to describe wave-particle duality at quantum scales? Like waveticle or particlave. After all we call this language English and not something like German-French duality? Seems it'd make things far less confusing for those newly exposed to QM or QFT concepts.","human_ref_B":"Light wave is not composed of particles. Light can take the form of both wave and particle during different kinds of interaction. For example when it collides during photoelectric effect, it does so in photonic form. It behaves as waves in effects like diffraction and interference. The key is to not think of light as waves but to consider the wave-particle duality itself as the inherent nature of light.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1605.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"ccvhh1","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I\u2019ve heard that light is both a wave and particle, and that this is some kind of great paradox, but doesn\u2019t that just mean light is waves composed of particles, like an ocean wave is composed of water molecules? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"etq3et8","c_root_id_B":"etqacpx","created_at_utc_A":1563071523,"created_at_utc_B":1563077600,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"No, rather the \"particles\" are simply bits of a wave. Wave-particle duality is a concept that causes nore trouble than it's worth. It runs into problems when you ask what it actually is. On the other hand, quantum field theory tells us that particles are just energy in quantum fields, which fill up space. In this case, the field is like the ocean (though it isn't made up of a water-molecule-equivalent), and the particles are simply waves that are bunched up in a small enough space.","human_ref_B":"Light wave is not composed of particles. Light can take the form of both wave and particle during different kinds of interaction. For example when it collides during photoelectric effect, it does so in photonic form. It behaves as waves in effects like diffraction and interference. The key is to not think of light as waves but to consider the wave-particle duality itself as the inherent nature of light.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6077.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ccvhh1","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I\u2019ve heard that light is both a wave and particle, and that this is some kind of great paradox, but doesn\u2019t that just mean light is waves composed of particles, like an ocean wave is composed of water molecules? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"etqacpx","c_root_id_B":"etq8v5m","created_at_utc_A":1563077600,"created_at_utc_B":1563076237,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Light wave is not composed of particles. Light can take the form of both wave and particle during different kinds of interaction. For example when it collides during photoelectric effect, it does so in photonic form. It behaves as waves in effects like diffraction and interference. The key is to not think of light as waves but to consider the wave-particle duality itself as the inherent nature of light.","human_ref_B":"watch this!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1363.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ccvhh1","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I\u2019ve heard that light is both a wave and particle, and that this is some kind of great paradox, but doesn\u2019t that just mean light is waves composed of particles, like an ocean wave is composed of water molecules? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"etq3et8","c_root_id_B":"etqbzyr","created_at_utc_A":1563071523,"created_at_utc_B":1563079205,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"No, rather the \"particles\" are simply bits of a wave. Wave-particle duality is a concept that causes nore trouble than it's worth. It runs into problems when you ask what it actually is. On the other hand, quantum field theory tells us that particles are just energy in quantum fields, which fill up space. In this case, the field is like the ocean (though it isn't made up of a water-molecule-equivalent), and the particles are simply waves that are bunched up in a small enough space.","human_ref_B":"I don't know why a whole new word wasn't used to describe wave-particle duality at quantum scales? Like waveticle or particlave. After all we call this language English and not something like German-French duality? Seems it'd make things far less confusing for those newly exposed to QM or QFT concepts.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7682.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"ccvhh1","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I\u2019ve heard that light is both a wave and particle, and that this is some kind of great paradox, but doesn\u2019t that just mean light is waves composed of particles, like an ocean wave is composed of water molecules? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"etqbzyr","c_root_id_B":"etq8v5m","created_at_utc_A":1563079205,"created_at_utc_B":1563076237,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't know why a whole new word wasn't used to describe wave-particle duality at quantum scales? Like waveticle or particlave. After all we call this language English and not something like German-French duality? Seems it'd make things far less confusing for those newly exposed to QM or QFT concepts.","human_ref_B":"watch this!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2968.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"rfkc9y","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Does gravity have \"speed\"? For example if Sun was to vanish\/implode momentarily, would Earth continue like nothing happened (for ~8mins, assuming speed of gravity equals speed of light) or would it immediately slingshot out of it's present orbit?","c_root_id_A":"hoen95o","c_root_id_B":"hof612a","created_at_utc_A":1639418812,"created_at_utc_B":1639426311,"score_A":10,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/askscience\/comments\/7gk23u\/if_the_sun_were_to_disappear_how_long_would_it\/dqk50p2\/","human_ref_B":"It travels at the speed of causality.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7499.0,"score_ratio":1.9} {"post_id":"x4vgyq","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What particle carries the electromagnetic force? When i hear about the electromagnetic field i always wonder how does **information** travel for the interaction to occurr, there must be a particle. I've looked everywhere and it says it's the photon, but how can photons move a magnet if the have no mass? Also what is this about virtual particles?","c_root_id_A":"imxlo0w","c_root_id_B":"imxl1td","created_at_utc_A":1662217062,"created_at_utc_B":1662216795,"score_A":81,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"The electromagnetic field exists at every point in space. The presence of charges, currents, dipoles, whatever, causes the value of the electromagnetic field to change. These changes are described by Maxwell's equations. So if you've got two magnets, the reason they interact with each other at a distance is because each one interacts locally with the electromagnetic field. There is no need for physical bodies to move back and forth between the two magnets for there to be an interaction. People do talk about the electromagnetic force being mediated by the photon, but you can't picture this as literally photons bouncing back and forth between the magnets and pushing them. All this really means is that the electromagnetic field is the photon field. Elementary excitations of the electromagnetic field are photons, and thus when we want to calculate electromagnetic interactions we often describe it in terms of virtual photons. But, further, it might be interesting to point out that despite not having any mass, photons *can* push things. This is because they still have momentum. This is the fundamental idea behind a solar sail.","human_ref_B":"Photons are the force carrier. Though photons don't have mass, they still have momentum and energy, which is the \"information\" that is transferred to and from charged particles. This information exists as a field stress of the EM field, but this stress is transient and can only exist as a wave that propagates in the field.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":267.0,"score_ratio":3.8571428571} {"post_id":"x4vgyq","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What particle carries the electromagnetic force? When i hear about the electromagnetic field i always wonder how does **information** travel for the interaction to occurr, there must be a particle. I've looked everywhere and it says it's the photon, but how can photons move a magnet if the have no mass? Also what is this about virtual particles?","c_root_id_A":"imxlo0w","c_root_id_B":"imxllqx","created_at_utc_A":1662217062,"created_at_utc_B":1662217034,"score_A":81,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The electromagnetic field exists at every point in space. The presence of charges, currents, dipoles, whatever, causes the value of the electromagnetic field to change. These changes are described by Maxwell's equations. So if you've got two magnets, the reason they interact with each other at a distance is because each one interacts locally with the electromagnetic field. There is no need for physical bodies to move back and forth between the two magnets for there to be an interaction. People do talk about the electromagnetic force being mediated by the photon, but you can't picture this as literally photons bouncing back and forth between the magnets and pushing them. All this really means is that the electromagnetic field is the photon field. Elementary excitations of the electromagnetic field are photons, and thus when we want to calculate electromagnetic interactions we often describe it in terms of virtual photons. But, further, it might be interesting to point out that despite not having any mass, photons *can* push things. This is because they still have momentum. This is the fundamental idea behind a solar sail.","human_ref_B":"Photons can push things because they have momentum.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28.0,"score_ratio":20.25} {"post_id":"jjyc8f","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"A ball released from rest on a frictionless downwards slope that continues onto a loopdeloop (also frictionless) of diameter equal to the slope\u2019s height doesn\u2019t reach the top of the loop. Is there a way to qualitatively explain why this is?","c_root_id_A":"gafnl5y","c_root_id_B":"gafs5ne","created_at_utc_A":1603926243,"created_at_utc_B":1603928614,"score_A":11,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"At the top of the loop, you need some speed to counteract gravity, but there's none left.","human_ref_B":"If it\u2019s truly frictionless, then at first glance it would seem like the ball should reach the top, due to conservation of gravitational potential energy. However, if that were to happen then the ball would have zero kinetic energy at the instant when it reaches the top of the loop. This would be fine if the ball were just moving up and down, but not if it\u2019s moving in a loop, since it would have to maintain at least some horizontal momentum in order to complete the loop. It\u2019s an interesting problem. Not sure if there\u2019s a simpler and more precise explanation, but use energy = kinetic + potential = conserved along the frictionless path, and see how things turn out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2371.0,"score_ratio":2.1818181818} {"post_id":"jjyc8f","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"A ball released from rest on a frictionless downwards slope that continues onto a loopdeloop (also frictionless) of diameter equal to the slope\u2019s height doesn\u2019t reach the top of the loop. Is there a way to qualitatively explain why this is?","c_root_id_A":"gafs5ne","c_root_id_B":"gafpfqw","created_at_utc_A":1603928614,"created_at_utc_B":1603927094,"score_A":24,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"If it\u2019s truly frictionless, then at first glance it would seem like the ball should reach the top, due to conservation of gravitational potential energy. However, if that were to happen then the ball would have zero kinetic energy at the instant when it reaches the top of the loop. This would be fine if the ball were just moving up and down, but not if it\u2019s moving in a loop, since it would have to maintain at least some horizontal momentum in order to complete the loop. It\u2019s an interesting problem. Not sure if there\u2019s a simpler and more precise explanation, but use energy = kinetic + potential = conserved along the frictionless path, and see how things turn out.","human_ref_B":"I'm curious if the ball would roll with no friction.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1520.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"jjyc8f","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"A ball released from rest on a frictionless downwards slope that continues onto a loopdeloop (also frictionless) of diameter equal to the slope\u2019s height doesn\u2019t reach the top of the loop. Is there a way to qualitatively explain why this is?","c_root_id_A":"gagh11x","c_root_id_B":"gaftubg","created_at_utc_A":1603942850,"created_at_utc_B":1603929535,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It starts with zero kinetic energy (at rest), and some potential energy (the height of the slope). And that's all the energy it has initially. To reach the top of the loop, it would have to have the same potential energy (same height), plus some kinetic energy (because it would be moving - it could never be at rest there). There's more total energy in case #2 than in case #1. You can't have energy just appear like that out of nowhere.","human_ref_B":"Of course there is a qualitative way to explain it. First of all, look at the point at the very top of the loopdeloop. Draw your free body diagram. Use newton's 2nd law. (hint, there is one force. There is an acceleration). That way, you can find the speed of the ball required for it to be able to go around the loopdeloop. Use conservation of energy to find out what the actual speed of the ball is at that point. Is it moving fast enough?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13315.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"jjyc8f","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"A ball released from rest on a frictionless downwards slope that continues onto a loopdeloop (also frictionless) of diameter equal to the slope\u2019s height doesn\u2019t reach the top of the loop. Is there a way to qualitatively explain why this is?","c_root_id_A":"gagh11x","c_root_id_B":"gag2fnm","created_at_utc_A":1603942850,"created_at_utc_B":1603934250,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It starts with zero kinetic energy (at rest), and some potential energy (the height of the slope). And that's all the energy it has initially. To reach the top of the loop, it would have to have the same potential energy (same height), plus some kinetic energy (because it would be moving - it could never be at rest there). There's more total energy in case #2 than in case #1. You can't have energy just appear like that out of nowhere.","human_ref_B":"COE, if qualitatively can mean symbols and no specific numbers, can show that to barely hang on at the top, or to have the inward centripetal force at the top (down) be only gravity that v must be square root of g x radius. Plugging into coe you can see the ke of .5mgr + the mg(2r) pe of being at that height requires a drop from 2.5 r, or 25% higher than the loop height. m cancels.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8600.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"5559rr","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"As a sophomore physics student interested in planetary science, what books and papers do you recommend I read?","c_root_id_A":"d87x7o2","c_root_id_B":"d87zhh5","created_at_utc_A":1475209711,"created_at_utc_B":1475214694,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"If you've got a strong math background (vector calc, linear algebra, diff eq) I recommend getting Howard Curtis's Orbital Mechanics book if you are into orbital stuff. The math is pretty elegant and the matlab stuff n there are very interesting as well.","human_ref_B":"deleted] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.1789 > [What is this?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4983.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"6vr04g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Occam's Razor: Why is the Copenhagen interpretation the leading theory in quantum mechanics if Pilot Wave theory explains everything while making less assumptions?","c_root_id_A":"dm2kh35","c_root_id_B":"dm2n9s1","created_at_utc_A":1503595079,"created_at_utc_B":1503598134,"score_A":13,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"The Pilot Wave theory explains everything learned in a QM 1 course. Standard QM was extended to fields in the late 1920s and made relativistic in the early 1930s. It's 2017 and Pilot Wave theory has not been extended to work in either domain.","human_ref_B":"Because pilot wave theory does not explain everything. It has some serious issues, not just with Lorentz invariance (violating special relativity) but also describing fermion fields. There is no good pilot wave theory that describes the creation and annihilation of particles while maintaining a deterministic evolution. here's a good review (pdf link) that discusses pilot waves and their (in)compatibility with quantum field theory.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3055.0,"score_ratio":1.8461538462} {"post_id":"6vr04g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Occam's Razor: Why is the Copenhagen interpretation the leading theory in quantum mechanics if Pilot Wave theory explains everything while making less assumptions?","c_root_id_A":"dm2ejqp","c_root_id_B":"dm2n9s1","created_at_utc_A":1503589068,"created_at_utc_B":1503598134,"score_A":8,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"first you are arguing interpretations not theories. that's a difference. then more importantly can you elaborate on why you think occam's razor should make pilot wave the preferred interpretation?","human_ref_B":"Because pilot wave theory does not explain everything. It has some serious issues, not just with Lorentz invariance (violating special relativity) but also describing fermion fields. There is no good pilot wave theory that describes the creation and annihilation of particles while maintaining a deterministic evolution. here's a good review (pdf link) that discusses pilot waves and their (in)compatibility with quantum field theory.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9066.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"6vr04g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Occam's Razor: Why is the Copenhagen interpretation the leading theory in quantum mechanics if Pilot Wave theory explains everything while making less assumptions?","c_root_id_A":"dm2n9s1","c_root_id_B":"dm2d07y","created_at_utc_A":1503598134,"created_at_utc_B":1503587414,"score_A":24,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Because pilot wave theory does not explain everything. It has some serious issues, not just with Lorentz invariance (violating special relativity) but also describing fermion fields. There is no good pilot wave theory that describes the creation and annihilation of particles while maintaining a deterministic evolution. here's a good review (pdf link) that discusses pilot waves and their (in)compatibility with quantum field theory.","human_ref_B":"> Why is the Copenhagen interpretation the leading theory in quantum mechanics... Citation, please. > ...if Pilot Wave theory explains everything while making less assumptions? Does it?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10720.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"6vr04g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Occam's Razor: Why is the Copenhagen interpretation the leading theory in quantum mechanics if Pilot Wave theory explains everything while making less assumptions?","c_root_id_A":"dm2ejqp","c_root_id_B":"dm2kh35","created_at_utc_A":1503589068,"created_at_utc_B":1503595079,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"first you are arguing interpretations not theories. that's a difference. then more importantly can you elaborate on why you think occam's razor should make pilot wave the preferred interpretation?","human_ref_B":"The Pilot Wave theory explains everything learned in a QM 1 course. Standard QM was extended to fields in the late 1920s and made relativistic in the early 1930s. It's 2017 and Pilot Wave theory has not been extended to work in either domain.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6011.0,"score_ratio":1.625} {"post_id":"6vr04g","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Occam's Razor: Why is the Copenhagen interpretation the leading theory in quantum mechanics if Pilot Wave theory explains everything while making less assumptions?","c_root_id_A":"dm2d07y","c_root_id_B":"dm2kh35","created_at_utc_A":1503587414,"created_at_utc_B":1503595079,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"> Why is the Copenhagen interpretation the leading theory in quantum mechanics... Citation, please. > ...if Pilot Wave theory explains everything while making less assumptions? Does it?","human_ref_B":"The Pilot Wave theory explains everything learned in a QM 1 course. Standard QM was extended to fields in the late 1920s and made relativistic in the early 1930s. It's 2017 and Pilot Wave theory has not been extended to work in either domain.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7665.0,"score_ratio":1.625} {"post_id":"oims2b","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"If everything accelerates at 9.8m\/s then why do different weighted objects roll down a hill at different speeds","c_root_id_A":"h4wfflf","c_root_id_B":"h4wenxw","created_at_utc_A":1626079335,"created_at_utc_B":1626078598,"score_A":29,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"A rolling object has both translational motion and rotating motion. There is only a certain amount of potential energy available from one point to another. Making an object rotate is harder with more mass or different mass configuration. The objects with higher moment of inertia will take more energy to rotate, leaving less to translate. You can also draw a force diagram of the contact patch, and consider that the tangential force required to rotate the object takes away from the force available to translate the object.","human_ref_B":"Only things which are in free-fall (not touching anything else) accelerate at 9.8 m\/s^2","labels":1,"seconds_difference":737.0,"score_ratio":3.625} {"post_id":"t2bbc3","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"How is linear algebra used in General Relativity? Is it used heavily?","c_root_id_A":"hyl09yl","c_root_id_B":"hyl9olv","created_at_utc_A":1645922251,"created_at_utc_B":1645926553,"score_A":3,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Tensor calculus is used to formulate Relativity. I\u2019m still learning tensor calculus now, so I can\u2019t speak too much on it, without being incorrect. Linear algebra is used, in tensor calculus so to say, with the einstein summation convention.","human_ref_B":"Yes. General Relativity is a particular manifestation of Differential Geometry which uses Linear Algebra and the language of Partial Differential Equations to describe the curvature of spacetime.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4302.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667} {"post_id":"t2bbc3","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"How is linear algebra used in General Relativity? Is it used heavily?","c_root_id_A":"hylau8x","c_root_id_B":"hyl09yl","created_at_utc_A":1645927105,"created_at_utc_B":1645922251,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"In general relativity, there is the notion of a linear vector space (and it\u2019s dual) at each point of a manifold. Tensors can be constructed from these vectors spaces as multilinear maps. For instance, the metric tensor, the solution to the general relativity field equations, is a bilinear map that maps a pair of vectors to their scalar inner product.","human_ref_B":"Tensor calculus is used to formulate Relativity. I\u2019m still learning tensor calculus now, so I can\u2019t speak too much on it, without being incorrect. Linear algebra is used, in tensor calculus so to say, with the einstein summation convention.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4854.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"vw1hgl","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Resources for understanding what quantum spin is? I\u2019ve looked online for some videos explaining quantum spin but I haven\u2019t really been satisfied with the explanations. Does anybody have resources they\u2019d recommend to understand it a deep level? For reference, I finished my physics undergrad this year.","c_root_id_A":"ifnibx0","c_root_id_B":"ifn8hdm","created_at_utc_A":1657493314,"created_at_utc_B":1657488964,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"See if you can find Peter Van Nieuwenhuizen's notes on group theory. Understanding that really helped me with spin, and his explanations are great.","human_ref_B":"Depends on what specifically you aren't satisfied with about the explanations you've been given.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4350.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"vw1hgl","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Resources for understanding what quantum spin is? I\u2019ve looked online for some videos explaining quantum spin but I haven\u2019t really been satisfied with the explanations. Does anybody have resources they\u2019d recommend to understand it a deep level? For reference, I finished my physics undergrad this year.","c_root_id_A":"ifnf64n","c_root_id_B":"ifnibx0","created_at_utc_A":1657491903,"created_at_utc_B":1657493314,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/physics.mcmaster.ca\/phys3mm3\/notes\/whatisspin.pdf","human_ref_B":"See if you can find Peter Van Nieuwenhuizen's notes on group theory. Understanding that really helped me with spin, and his explanations are great.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1411.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"api148","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Any good places on the internet where I can learn calculus? And where can i find beginner's level exercises on calculus? I'm a beginner at learning calculus and while i have some knowledge of the basics, i still have trouble implementing the concept in a physics problem per sey. Title says the rest.","c_root_id_A":"eg8lo2l","c_root_id_B":"eg8mvco","created_at_utc_A":1549907210,"created_at_utc_B":1549907898,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Calculus for dummies was a life saver for me. Also this site: https:\/\/www.derivative-calculator.net\/ Throw a problem at its algorithms. It gives all the steps and if you hover over the step it tells you which rule was applied. Be prepared to write down each rule a ton of times before you remember them all.","human_ref_B":"Check out Professor Leonard on YouTube. He has calculus 1, 2, and 3 lectures recorded, plus DE, and they're really good. Practice a lot of problems as you go.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":688.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"p8z4ax","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Could you survive this fall into water? For this we assume no wind, no water motion, and a perfectly perpendicular entry. If you have a sufficiently long and sharp needle attached to the bottom of your feet and you perfectly jump out of a helicopter from thousands of feet in the air. Could you break the surface tension of the water and survive? This is basically cliff diving via pencil dive vs belly flop, but just extrapolated to the extreme. A very scientific diagram of what I mean: https:\/\/imgur.com\/XNEhNK1 Thanks in advance :)","c_root_id_A":"h9un7ml","c_root_id_B":"h9u0n4j","created_at_utc_A":1629591534,"created_at_utc_B":1629580590,"score_A":14,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Could you break the surface tension of the water and survive? Surface tension isn't the hazardous part of landing on water. The hazardous part is moving the water out of the way, which\u2014because of a liquid's viscosity\u2014produces tremendous stresses when the deformation rate is high. Your challenges are to keep the needle suitably vertical (so that it moves the water out of the way at a slow enough rate to not injuriously decelerate you or buckle) and to engineer it to provide enough buoyancy so that the entire assembly comes to rest about the time that you're near the surface.","human_ref_B":"You might survive the landing, it's possible, but if you sink too far, you'll drown before reaching the surface.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10944.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"p8z4ax","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Could you survive this fall into water? For this we assume no wind, no water motion, and a perfectly perpendicular entry. If you have a sufficiently long and sharp needle attached to the bottom of your feet and you perfectly jump out of a helicopter from thousands of feet in the air. Could you break the surface tension of the water and survive? This is basically cliff diving via pencil dive vs belly flop, but just extrapolated to the extreme. A very scientific diagram of what I mean: https:\/\/imgur.com\/XNEhNK1 Thanks in advance :)","c_root_id_A":"h9u4a2h","c_root_id_B":"h9un7ml","created_at_utc_A":1629582276,"created_at_utc_B":1629591534,"score_A":3,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Hard to say for sure, but your odds would certainly be increased. The needle itself would slow you down significantly, both from the vertical component of the surface normal producing a normal force, and from friction with the water.","human_ref_B":">Could you break the surface tension of the water and survive? Surface tension isn't the hazardous part of landing on water. The hazardous part is moving the water out of the way, which\u2014because of a liquid's viscosity\u2014produces tremendous stresses when the deformation rate is high. Your challenges are to keep the needle suitably vertical (so that it moves the water out of the way at a slow enough rate to not injuriously decelerate you or buckle) and to engineer it to provide enough buoyancy so that the entire assembly comes to rest about the time that you're near the surface.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9258.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667} {"post_id":"p8z4ax","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Could you survive this fall into water? For this we assume no wind, no water motion, and a perfectly perpendicular entry. If you have a sufficiently long and sharp needle attached to the bottom of your feet and you perfectly jump out of a helicopter from thousands of feet in the air. Could you break the surface tension of the water and survive? This is basically cliff diving via pencil dive vs belly flop, but just extrapolated to the extreme. A very scientific diagram of what I mean: https:\/\/imgur.com\/XNEhNK1 Thanks in advance :)","c_root_id_A":"h9ty2pz","c_root_id_B":"h9un7ml","created_at_utc_A":1629579393,"created_at_utc_B":1629591534,"score_A":2,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"What would I be wearing?","human_ref_B":">Could you break the surface tension of the water and survive? Surface tension isn't the hazardous part of landing on water. The hazardous part is moving the water out of the way, which\u2014because of a liquid's viscosity\u2014produces tremendous stresses when the deformation rate is high. Your challenges are to keep the needle suitably vertical (so that it moves the water out of the way at a slow enough rate to not injuriously decelerate you or buckle) and to engineer it to provide enough buoyancy so that the entire assembly comes to rest about the time that you're near the surface.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12141.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"p8z4ax","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Could you survive this fall into water? For this we assume no wind, no water motion, and a perfectly perpendicular entry. If you have a sufficiently long and sharp needle attached to the bottom of your feet and you perfectly jump out of a helicopter from thousands of feet in the air. Could you break the surface tension of the water and survive? This is basically cliff diving via pencil dive vs belly flop, but just extrapolated to the extreme. A very scientific diagram of what I mean: https:\/\/imgur.com\/XNEhNK1 Thanks in advance :)","c_root_id_A":"h9uvym1","c_root_id_B":"h9u0n4j","created_at_utc_A":1629595863,"created_at_utc_B":1629580590,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Upvote for the drawing.","human_ref_B":"You might survive the landing, it's possible, but if you sink too far, you'll drown before reaching the surface.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15273.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"p8z4ax","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Could you survive this fall into water? For this we assume no wind, no water motion, and a perfectly perpendicular entry. If you have a sufficiently long and sharp needle attached to the bottom of your feet and you perfectly jump out of a helicopter from thousands of feet in the air. Could you break the surface tension of the water and survive? This is basically cliff diving via pencil dive vs belly flop, but just extrapolated to the extreme. A very scientific diagram of what I mean: https:\/\/imgur.com\/XNEhNK1 Thanks in advance :)","c_root_id_A":"h9uvym1","c_root_id_B":"h9u4a2h","created_at_utc_A":1629595863,"created_at_utc_B":1629582276,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Upvote for the drawing.","human_ref_B":"Hard to say for sure, but your odds would certainly be increased. The needle itself would slow you down significantly, both from the vertical component of the surface normal producing a normal force, and from friction with the water.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13587.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"p8z4ax","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Could you survive this fall into water? For this we assume no wind, no water motion, and a perfectly perpendicular entry. If you have a sufficiently long and sharp needle attached to the bottom of your feet and you perfectly jump out of a helicopter from thousands of feet in the air. Could you break the surface tension of the water and survive? This is basically cliff diving via pencil dive vs belly flop, but just extrapolated to the extreme. A very scientific diagram of what I mean: https:\/\/imgur.com\/XNEhNK1 Thanks in advance :)","c_root_id_A":"h9ty2pz","c_root_id_B":"h9uvym1","created_at_utc_A":1629579393,"created_at_utc_B":1629595863,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What would I be wearing?","human_ref_B":"Upvote for the drawing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16470.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"p8z4ax","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Could you survive this fall into water? For this we assume no wind, no water motion, and a perfectly perpendicular entry. If you have a sufficiently long and sharp needle attached to the bottom of your feet and you perfectly jump out of a helicopter from thousands of feet in the air. Could you break the surface tension of the water and survive? This is basically cliff diving via pencil dive vs belly flop, but just extrapolated to the extreme. A very scientific diagram of what I mean: https:\/\/imgur.com\/XNEhNK1 Thanks in advance :)","c_root_id_A":"h9u4a2h","c_root_id_B":"h9u0n4j","created_at_utc_A":1629582276,"created_at_utc_B":1629580590,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hard to say for sure, but your odds would certainly be increased. The needle itself would slow you down significantly, both from the vertical component of the surface normal producing a normal force, and from friction with the water.","human_ref_B":"You might survive the landing, it's possible, but if you sink too far, you'll drown before reaching the surface.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1686.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"p8z4ax","domain":"askphysics_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Could you survive this fall into water? For this we assume no wind, no water motion, and a perfectly perpendicular entry. If you have a sufficiently long and sharp needle attached to the bottom of your feet and you perfectly jump out of a helicopter from thousands of feet in the air. Could you break the surface tension of the water and survive? This is basically cliff diving via pencil dive vs belly flop, but just extrapolated to the extreme. A very scientific diagram of what I mean: https:\/\/imgur.com\/XNEhNK1 Thanks in advance :)","c_root_id_A":"h9u4a2h","c_root_id_B":"h9ty2pz","created_at_utc_A":1629582276,"created_at_utc_B":1629579393,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hard to say for sure, but your odds would certainly be increased. The needle itself would slow you down significantly, both from the vertical component of the surface normal producing a normal force, and from friction with the water.","human_ref_B":"What would I be wearing?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2883.0,"score_ratio":1.5}