Hacker News Reader

> It doesn't say how to learn physics.

OK, but can any article ever hope to give a real prescription for "how" to learn physics?

Far more important than "how" is "why" or "to what end". It's no different than obtaining mastery in any other big subject. The article is perfectly fine as a reading list or set of suggestions for students that have some passion for learning physics. There's other advice out there consisting of long lists of exactly which topics to study and in what order. All good advice, but totally fungible and not critical to anybody's path.

I would not take her other article "If Susan can learn physics, so can you" as a "lie". It's a piece of inspiration. So many folks don't live up to their potential because they prematurely self-select themselves out of endeavors which they feel passionate about. If I remember correctly (the link seems to be down), in Susan's case, she was a home-schooled kid living in a not wealthy rural place with few resources and low expectations from her family and peers. She ended up at University of Pennsylvania in a Physics PHD program. Does that mean "everyone" can literally do that? No, but rather, there's no excuse not to try (whether it's a PHD or any other seemingly infeasible challenge). Sometimes people people really need to hear that and she told her story eloquently.

i was a physics PhD student once and i might have some thoughts on how to learn physics, but i think the parent commenter is spot on -- the only reliable way we have is to have an apprenticeship with someone who works well with you.

there are a tons of posts along the lines of this one, which are largely lists of books that people like to romanticize or as the parent comment says, lists of things that someone thinks you should know.

the Feynman lectures are a good example of that, actually. i've read them a couple of times and they are wonderful -- like most things Feynman. but very unhelpful. even Feynman was disappointed at how the students they were given to weren't quite learning the physics. Feynman is to explaining science as, eg Joshua Bell is to performing music for the violin. but in terms of actually trying to learn what a physical theory says, to what degree it holds, what are the current open problems with it, and what might be good approaches to solving them, Feynman explanations outside of highly technical works (like his papers or maybe his lecture notes on statistical mechanics) are not too useful. and the more technical works are very difficult to approach by yourself, you'll need a mentor.

My frustration comes from the sentiment that supposedly everyone with a can-do attitude can learn Quantum Mechanics (which is addmitedly quite easy to grasp after you have had years and years in studies of the whole physics curricula) It makes physics sound SO easy! I fell for that lie when I was inspired by my physics curriculum in high school which was quite advanced. I dropped out of physics after just 1 semester, because the courses where horrible. I have learned physics in my engineering school and I finally understood what the problems were I was facing: I had approached my physics studies the same way I was learning physics in high school.

Inspiration is an illusion, an illusion is a lie, it's concealing the thruth. The physics faculty, instead of taking the realistic approach aka "forget everything you know about physics", had chosen to reinforce the sentiment that everybody can do it. In truth, the faculty needs numbers of students to get grants from the government. The faculty doesn't care about your inspiration. Many of the books she lists I actually do possess and have read them partially, watched a lot of lectures. But nothing can replace how the learn that stuff, how to translate it so that it fits in your own head.

Since then, all I read when I see "If Susan can do it, so can you!" is in actuality "If Susan can do it, good for her, moving on!"

Oh, and to make the whole matter more ridiculous, I have been told repeatedly "maybe studying is not your thing?" and after a while I got it and answered "That's it! Studying on your courses in your university is not my thing! Thanks!"

> Inspiration is an illusion, an illusion is a lie, it's concealing the truth.

Well, that's a grim and somewhat dramatic view!

We're all motivated in large part by inspiration of some form. I think of inspiration as a kind of fuel that gets one through the inevitable rough patches on the way to mastery (it doesn't matter what subject or what aspect of life). It helps drive both curiosity and grit. People without inspiration in life's-work or career are apt to take the path of least resistance, they appear incurious and bored. That's not necessarily a bad thing if there's inspiration in other parts of life.

So you dropped the undergrad physics major after ONE semester because the "courses were horrible"?? I don't think so. You dropped it because you were 18 and people at that age are flighty and unsure of what to do, that's totally OK.

I do agree, however, that more curricula should take the "forget-everything-you-know-and-start-from-fundamentals" approach. IMHO, undergrad students would be better off if all STEM majors were basically one merged curriculum with a few courses different towards the end. That won't ever happen, of course, as long as people see universities as strictly vocational training and employers think they want subject-matter-experts who can "hit the ground running" on entry level jobs.

I enjoyed the theory and problems much more than doing "experiments" in high school and university.

In fact, I loathed the lab components. I always felt they were highly contrived, and offered little value beyond having to learn the structure of writing out a formal lab.

I get that experimentation and laboratory work is a vital part of science. I just appreciated the problem solving components more.

I think it’s sort of even between undergrad experiments and problems in degree of contrivance.

Everyone can learn!

The problem is many people don't know how to learn, or haven't developed good habits-of-mind. That goes under the terms executive function and metacognitive skills. They are force multipliers throughout your education, and you're right that schools don't teach them.

If I can do it, so can you! It just takes a few years developing those skills, and ideally a little bit of mentorship to point you on the way.

And no, people don't learn differently. That's one of the biggest lies fleeced upon us. The reference there is: "Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence." Turns out we all learn more-or-less the same way. Many of us believe we learn differently, but we actually don't. A big part of executive function is differentiating between activities which /feel/ like learning, and ones where skills actually grow.

The arrogance displayed here by saying “If I can do it, so can you!” when that’s exactly what OP is complaining about is astounding.

Does everyone have the same level of intelligence? Are you really telling me that absolutely any member of the public could learn QFT, even people with a severe learning disability and low-IQ? Anyone you just randomly plucked off the street? Just no.

I assume this was flagged for being combative, but it's spot-on, so I vouched it.

How many people with Down syndrome have mastered calculus? Let's please attend to reality in these matters.

Thanks, and apologies if it came off as needlessly combative. I probably could’ve phrased it better.

I wasn't referring to mental disability, but aside from that, yes, a typical random person plucked off the street could generally learn quantum field theory, given about a decade of appropriate focused effort.

Mathematical maturity takes about a half-decade to develop, maybe a little more. Working through physics up to QFT takes a bit under a half-decade, in my experience. It's slow-going at first, and then accelerates.

I've seen people go through very similar transitions before.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

As a practicing physicist, i would compare the amount of time, effort and skill needed to complete a PhD to that needed to become a professional session musician. Some people will find aspects of it much easier than others because of talent, some will get a big head start in childhood, some will learn much faster than their peers because they practice 6 hours per day and are driven by their passion. Some people get lucky and have the trifecta.

This doesn't mean that there isn't value in an adult choosing to learn an instrument (i.e. study physics). It can be enriching even if one never reaches the point of quitting their day job to play music full time.

Apologies if I came off as needlessly combative, my phrasing could certainly be improved.

Don’t get me wrong, I completely agree with what you’re saying. In fact, I encourage anyone with even the slightest inclination to study essentially anything, but especially physics, in their own free time to do it. You’re spot on in saying that there’s value in doing that.

The only assumption I wanted to challenge was that absolutely every human on Earth could do it. I just think that’s patently untrue, and betrays an inability to view things from other people’s perspective.

Everyone can learn, but not everyone can learn any arbitrary subject or discipline to an arbitrary level of depth. We all have different levels of intellectual capacity.

> Everyone can learn!

No they can't. Thinking so is just the Dunning-Kruger effect on show. You don't realise your own strengths.

It's probably easier to understand through the lens of your weaknesses. Pick something you've never been good at. Maybe it's art, or singing, some sport like pitching a baseball, training animals, rally driving, working with 2 years olds 8 hours a day, or god help me making the perfect weld. And now imagine someone saying whose really good at it (and anyone who truly understands basis for the 2nd law of thermodynamics is such an outlier) oh, anybody can be as good as me - your just not trying hard enough.

> And now imagine someone saying whose really good at it (and anyone who truly understands basis for the 2nd law of thermodynamics is such an outlier) oh, anybody can be as good as me - your just not trying hard enough.

I'd agree with them!

Seriously. I can't get good at all of those -- there isn't enough time in my life -- but I could get good at any one of those given time and effort. I'm really bad at art. Would I be Van Gogh? No. But I could get up to the same level as a professional illustrator in a few years. Anyone* can. Could I learn to sing? Sure, again, given a few years of hard training. I wouldn't be the next Susan Boyle, but I could definitely go from zero to where I could perform in a local performance or sing as well as a professional backup singer or chorist.

Going back to quantum field theory, I'm not claiming anyone can make the next breakthrough in physics, but anyone* can learn quantum field theory at the level of a e.g. a typical grad student in the field.

And a perfect weld just ain't that hard. Anyone can learn to do that. I've seen welding artwork which is hard (people building up metal to make beautiful artwork completely additively, for example), but you could be a professional welder if you set your mind to it.

* Standard exclusions apply. No, a blind quadriplegic with cerebral palsy might not be able to train to run a marathon, or by "everyone," I mean everyone from, say, the 20th percentile up.

I think you're partially right. In order to learn from a list of textbook recommendations you need to know how to read effectively and comparatively, how to take proper notes, how to record your thoughts and questions for future reference, how and when to summarize the information you just read to support learning and understanding (chunking it and fitting it in to your mental schema along with information from other sources), and you need to be disciplined enough to go back and review your notes and the text so that you will actually remember the material.

I don't think it's a matter of "having the right mind" or any sort of innate ability. It's a matter of acquiring the skillset and perspective necessary to learn. I agree that school does not teach this, you're simply expected to either be a good or a bad student and any failing is entirely your own. We'd have many more "inquisitive minds" if our education system taught kids how to be inquisitive, literally how to ask questions of themselves and others, instead of test taking.

The knowledge transfer process is different for everyone insofar as everyone tends to be at varying levels of competency in the set of skills needed to acquire that knowledge. This is generally the case because training of those skills is so neglected or hodgepodge and left up to blind chance, peer groups, and parents.

Experiment is key because all knowledge requires some grounding in actual physical experience. The base of the framework that you build upon is made up of your interactions with the world. Another failing of our current system is shuttling people between home and school with less and less "free" time in the wider world. We have it backwards, thinking that we need to frontload all the information and book-learning and then explore the world after that's done. We couldn't be more wrong, our physical experience must precede or coincide with our education. You have to walk the halls and avenues of the world in order to build up a store of places and things upon which you can hang the names and concepts that you learn.

I was not sure how to say "having the right mind". I didn't say the right brain, because that is what determines "innate ability". But the brain has plasticity, so then the mind must also be flexible and can be prepared to understand new stuff.

So, "having the right mind" can also mean "prepared mind" having the right mental tools to understand and apply knowledge to new problems. I do not know the right words for describing "the right mind" in context of learning. But, intellectual competence is also partially determined by the innate ability of people to observe things and make connections which is not a given.

No, "learning physics is easy" is a flat out lie. For some it will be very frustrating depending on the path they take.

"Most people give up" is probably the truth. People don't want to put in the effort.

Another truth is that many people never recover from finding that some fact of physics strongly contradicts their intuition. That is what flat earth is all about: people just cannot accept when their intuition is wrong.

I agree that physics requires some level of experimenting to truly internalize the knowledge. I don't think "everyone can learn physics" is a lie, though. If you are interpreting that phrase as being able to make breakthroughs in our understanding of physics, then sure. However, if you interpret it as having an solid understanding of the fundamentals to the point that you can actually apply some of it to your day to day reasoning and problem solving, then I don't think the phrase is a lie. Everyone already has a grasp of physics, getting a bit more formal about it is doable by anyone who has a high school diploma.

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ratatouille

In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: "Anyone can cook." But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.

>"Everyone can learn physics" is a flat out lie to make other people feel better. Without a proper tutorium and insufferable fits of frustration it's only possible to learn such complex subjects on your own you if have the right mind (whatever that is) for it. That arrogance some people have saying "If I can do it, why can't you?!" is beyond tolerable.

But people find being told they cannot do something, also bad. Telling someone that they are not mart enough to do something is demoralizing even if it is grounded in reality. is it worse to tell someone they cannot do something, or give them false hope? It really depends on your ethical and value system. In the case of physics, the worst that happens is thy try it and get bored.

>It doesn't say how to learn physics

Presumably by reading the books

I think the right phrasing ought to be that anyone can learn physics if they want to. The problem is that learning anything deeply is really hard, much harder than you think it'll be upfront. So, unless you're really motivated and really want to see it through, you're likely going to give up.

That being said, I believe that if you're a reasonably intelligent person (say at least above the median) then I don't see any major issue with you learning physics to some decent extent.