Theoretical Physics... Impossible?

Jonathan

I'm a 6th year student thinking of doing TP.

I've been told by a friend who knows people doing TP that on the first day everybody is told that only 10% of people starting that day will get a degree at the end of the course.

Is it really that hard?

I'm doing Hons Maths, Applied Maths and Physics. What grade would you need to get in each to even think of doing this course.

Any responses will be greatly appreciated.

Jon

notjim

Myth, they are neither told that nor is it true; it does have a higher drop out rate than most courses, but only because people change to maths or physics, something they can do without loosing a year.

Troglodyte

jmccrohan wrote:

I'm a 6th year student thinking of doing TP.

I've been told by a friend who knows people doing TP that on the first day everybody is told that only 10% of people starting that day will get a degree at the end of the course.

Is it really that hard?

I'm doing Hons Maths, Applied Maths and Physics. What grade would you need to get in each to even think of doing this course.

Any responses will be greatly appreciated.

Jon

I don't mean to put you off TP in any way, but everything I've heard about it indicates that it is very challenging. One of my flatmates in halls last year took TP, and he found it very difficult, even though he got a B2 in Higher Maths without much struggle. He spent a serious amount of time studying but to little avail, and eventually transferred to the broader science degree last March. A lot of people in his year similarly found it difficult. Now I really don't mean to deter you from going for TP, it could suit you fine if you have a natural aptitude for maths, but don't expect it to be a particularly easy course.

Nietzschean

jmccrohan wrote:

I've been told by a friend who knows people doing TP that on the first day everybody is told that only 10% of people starting that day will get a degree at the end of the course.

People who have a degree after 4 years is more like 90% i'd say. People who have a TP degree on the other hand is somewhere about 40% probally lower...

Is it really that hard?

Em more or less yes.

I'm doing Hons Maths, Applied Maths and Physics. What grade would you need to get in each to even think of doing this course.

Funny thing is , LC maths and uni maths are so different that your results in those are all but irrelevent.(i got A1's in all of them way back when, as did most of TP...)


I left TP and moved to maths because i hated writing lab reports. Its quite a varied and difficult course. I wouldn't be put off trying it though, as has been said you can always transfer out.

and notjim did you do TP? i was told something like 10% of people finish the TP course when i started it. Heck we lost like 40% of the class by xmas of first year. [first year courses have been improved since then, abstract algebra has been moved to second year, and they go through it slower]

Jonathan

thanks lads. ill think ill go for it. and sure if its unmanageable ill change to maths.
presumably its fairly handy to change to maths?

sully-gormo

TP is basically both the Physics and Maths courses (at the start anyways); at least thats what I hear. So if you transfer out to phys or maths then you should be grand (presumably). Id say the problem is if you transferred to physics, you would have to take up other science subjects (1 or 2 i think) so youd be playing catch up there. Thats all I know going in next week.

notjim

Nietzschean wrote:

and notjim did you do TP? i was told something like 10% of people finish the TP course when i started it. Heck we lost like 40% of the class by xmas of first year. [first year courses have been improved since then, abstract algebra has been moved to second year, and they go through it slower]

Well I don't think the drop out rate has ever been close to 90%. I am curious, who told you to only expect 10% of the class to graduate? And again, as in another thread, I am curious, is it hard in a good way, or do you think it is made needlessly difficult and is the balance between the two departments correct?

Nietzschean

sully-gormo wrote:

TP is basically both the Physics and Maths courses (at the start anyways); at least thats what I hear. So if you transfer out to phys or maths then you should be grand (presumably). Id say the problem is if you transferred to physics, you would have to take up other science subjects (1 or 2 i think) so youd be playing catch up there. Thats all I know going in next week.

At the start TP is maths minus stats, and physics minus mechanics if i recall correctly, on the physics side you have an extra course of special relativity. Though that gets more vague as the years go on, TP's take certain maths courses very limited choice (take 211,221,231,241 in second year , and 3.5 maths courses in 3rd year, can't remember how many it was in final year)

if you transfer to maths you've to basically learn stats, though most of the stats courses change enough so you arn't at much of a disadvantage if you transfer into the start of 2nd year as i did for example. If you transfer to physics after 3rd year i'm guessing your missing some stuff, but you won't have to look at the other 2 subjects, only if you move in 1st or 2nd year.(then in science you can take maths as a second subject which would be far easier than the maths you do in tp, so its really only picking up one other subject..)

Nietzschean

notjim wrote:

Well I don't think the drop out rate has ever been close to 90%.

I doubt it has either,but given the size of TP's class that figure is more or less unacheieveable. it has been at 8/30 people finishing before iirc.

I am curious, who told you to only expect 10% of the class to graduate?

One of the senior lecturers, i'm guessing more to make people work and study.

And again, as in another thread, I am curious, is it hard in a good way, or do you think it is made needlessly difficult and is the balance between the two departments correct?

IMO its too broad, i wouldn't say too difficult, just too broad,exams end up being so cramped to together for TP's it makes life quite hard on them. Though it produces graduates of a very high calibur, so i dunno if you want to pump out the best for physics/maths research i guess it works.

There were some good responses on this topic from times gone by... (I started in TP but transferred out after Christmas to Engineering)

1, 2

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

Nothing's impossible (within the context of a university course ) if you put your mind to it.

The_Radiator

If you have a good idea of what the actual TP is about, and are certain you want to do it, give it your best shot.

TP comes across to me as being a very difficult undergraduate course, both in terms of volume and complexity. As Ian states above, and has said many times before, Maths in Trinity and Maths in your secondary school are very very different subjects. All bright people can get an A or a B in maths in the Leaving Cert. but Trinity Maths is really for the people that just get a kick out of the subject.

Some people say they love maths in school but I think this is because they find it easy rather than actually loving maths the subject. So once you take the easyness from it...

Between now and then try and find out what TP really entails, get in contact with some TPers (you'll find some floating around this board) and quiz them, see if its for you.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

Well I for one loved maths, especially the "hard stuff"...there was a real sense of reward spending a good 20 minutes solving a difficult problem or staring at a difficult calculus question before realising how to solve it...

gg mathzzzzz

irjfn

Well I studied TP and to be honest it is not a hard course at all. It simply has an image perpetuated by the people who study it. It is far from being the hadest course in the college. The people who do it have this attitude though whereby they believe it is and I absolutely hate that. The hardest courses would probably be the professional courses such as Medicine, pharmacy or Engineering. These subjects require creativity and a level of anlytical ability that TP does not and usually have up to and above 40 timetabled hours

TP can be mastered through rote memorisation in much the same way history can be. The lecturer can decide how easy or hard to make a maths exam. The exams are very predictable . This is not true of the professional courses whose standards are regulated by external bodies. These courses have to prepare students for unpredicatble situations. Not a case of learn off the problem sets and get a first.

As for becoming an actual "Theoretical Physicist", well that might be difficult, but no more difficult than anything else. Everything is hard at the highest levels.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

Nice. Very informative post. Thanks irjfn

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Last week's economist magazine had a very interesting write-up on two recent books on theoretical physics. I know nothing about the area, but after reading the summary of these books, i'd worry about the usefulness of what is taught in the TP part of the course.

Essentially saying that string theory offers no rejectable hypotheses despite 20 years of research, and thus it cannot possibly be described as a theory.

Having said that, it probably doesn't matter whether a degree such as this imparts actual useful knowledge, just that it gives you the mindset to learn and understand the relevant problems in your future work.

notjim

Don't worry, string theory isn't taught to undergraduates and, importantly, what has been achieved by string theorists has lead to important advances in mathematics and important insights into physics, even if it proves not to be true of nature all this work, very deep work, has not been a waste. A similar thing happened in the 60s, lots of people worked on exact S matrix theory, not as deep mathematically as string theory, but, even though it was wrong, it helped people understand the important issues of the physics of the time and contributed to the rapid advances made using quantum field theory in the early 70s. Not that string theory is neccessarily wrong, we don't know yet and it would be suprise if the mathematics of string theory was so deep without the theory being somehow true. Lee Smolin is a bit of a nut, a clever one and it is useful for him to write books like this, but it doesn't mean he's right. The Columbia guy is nobody.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Last time i turn to the Economist for advice on theoretical physics.

Now that you say it, it reminds me a bit of something i read about the alchemy movement in 'the olden days'. No-one ever successfully made gold, but they did set out the foundation for modern chemistry. Sounds similar to your point on string theory.

Nietzschean

irjfn wrote:

Well I studied TP and to be honest it is not a hard course at all.

Sorry if i sound a skeptic, but in trinity? when did you graduate. I've never heard a grad talk about TP like that.

The hardest courses would probably be the professional courses such as Medicine, pharmacy or Engineering.

Given i've done more of the TP and engineering subjects than most through the years i can tell u TP is substancially harder than any engineering course i've ever taken.

TP can be mastered through rote memorisation in much the same way history can be.

ERR CFT can alright, but even then any half decent TP doesn't do that, infact i know no TP's who go for mass rote memorisation. Because well it won't working in alot of their subjects.

The lecturer can decide how easy or hard to make a maths exam.

No, no they can't, it has to pass external examiners also.

The exams are very predictable .

Some are, some arn't, like any course.

This is not true of the professional courses whose standards are regulated by external bodies. These courses have to prepare students for unpredicatble situations. Not a case of learn off the problem sets and get a first.

how far did you get in TP exactly? did you ever actually do it? 3 people this year got 1st's in TP , and i can guarantee you none of them were learning off the problem sets.

spacecoyote

Yeah i studied maths & a good few mates studied TP, a few currently studying postgrads in trinners now. TP is not an easy course at all, its fairly intense and as mentioned above there are no TP students that i know who either found the course easy or who got through the course through memory work alone (i can't say the same for maths!!!). If you were to switch stats isn't a problem as from 3rd year onwards all subjects are optional (as long as you can fit them into your timetable). So if you have a decent grounding in physics you can skip out stats altogether & focus on computer/mechanics/pure maths options. Expect to put alot of work in if you study TP. My mates were so much more dedicated in TP than in the maths course. Not too sure what the prospects are like when you come out of the course as most people i know are doing postgrads or switched and did finance postgrads to go into actuarial work or something like that. you gotta look at 500 points plus to get in i reckon, so you'll need to be aiming for top grades in your maths/physics/applied maths leaving cert

caffrey

yeah so however you are, I am in TP presently and I will give a rundown of the subjects that I will be studying next year.

QFT, considered one of the hardest courses to study in theoretical physics, most colleges don't even run the course because of its difficulty. I can assure you that it is not a rote learning course. QFT=Quantum Field Theory

Differential Geometry, only 7 people sat this subject last year due to its difficulty, many deciding to drop out with only one week to go. Deciding to take up an easier option. Which will not be possible this year as there is one less option than normal.

There is a Numerical simulation course which is fully continual assesment and there will be no learning off, you get a problem and you figure it out or you don't.

To apply what you make out to any of the above courses would be ridiculous.

Mathematical Neurobiology, A new course this year so I do not know its format yet but due to the unpredictability of Conor houghtons courses i'd expect the unexpected.

The only course that I did that was learn off was Classical field theory and it is marked very hard and there are some changes every year so there is a requirement of understanding. One course out of 10-12 maths courses for 3rd/4th year is not much!!

On top of these maths courses there will be 10 physics modules and a computational/Laboratory Project(more learining I suppose!!).

I do not dissagree that there are many hours in medicine engineering etc but there are a lot of extremely hard concepts in TP that would not be anyway as straight forward as most of the medicine theory(again I am not making out that it is easy) I will also mention that I have had ~25 hours a week of timetabled hours every year.

Get a grip man, if you chose the easiest subjects and only did stuff that you could learn off then your degree isn't worth the paper its printed on. And I dont believe that the subjects would be that format then as they are so different now.

this is mainly a retort to irjfn's post.

caffrey

in reply to jmccrohan it is a hard course but its not gonna be worth doing if its not hard. You come out with a really good degree.

You should get the minimum requirements in the courses mentioned, getting A1's isn't necessary as you may have to spend a lot more time on subjects you are weeker at(languages for me). Get the best grades possible as you dont wanna have to make up ground.

All in all its a very interesting and rewarding course.

irjfn

caffrey wrote:

"QFT, considered one of the hardest courses to study in theoretical physics, most colleges don't even run the course because of its difficulty. "

Well firstly, i'd like to point out that you are demonstrating the same superior attitude I refered to in my first post. Your so proud of how difficult it is. I was simply trying to show a little modesty and point out that maths is not the only difficult thing in the world.Just because the majority of people dont care about it, doesnt make it difficult.

Many colleges do not teach certain courses because there is no resident academic interested in the field. For example many TP courses offer Fluid Mechanics as an option. Trinity did not for many years(I think theyre starting again this year).

caffrey wrote:

"The only course that I did that was learn off was Classical field theory and it is marked very hard and there are some changes every year."

What about QM. Everyone knows the questions come from the recent years problem sets.

caffrey wrote:

"I do not dissagree that there are many hours in medicine engineering etc but there are a lot of extremely hard concepts in TP that would not be anyway as straight forward as most of the medicine theory"

Of course it couldnt be as difficult as TP, nothing could ever be as difficult as TP. Sure the human body is simple.
To claim that concepts in TP are more complex than medicine is equivalent to saying that more intelligent people study physics as the complexity of any subject(excluding closed fields) is surely limited by the intelligence of the people researching it. This is very arrogant. Many of the greatest minds in history have actually chosen other fields besides physics.


Oh yeah, and from what I gather there have been several threads on here in the past in which people(usually TP students) have gone on about how difficult TP is. I have yet to find medicine students etc. on here bragging about how difficult there course is. A little modesty wouldnt go amiss

ApeXaviour

Nietzschean wrote:

if you transfer into the start of 2nd year as i did for example. If you transfer to physics after 3rd year i'm guessing your missing some stuff, but you won't have to look at the other 2 subjects, only if you move in 1st or 2nd year.(then in science you can take maths as a second subject which would be far easier than the maths you do in tp, so its really only picking up one other subject..)

If you're transferring into natural science from TP in 1st year it would need to be near the beginning. Otherwise you would miss out on labs which respective departments consider irremissible (especially chemistry). If you transferred (again at the very beginning) of 2nd year conceivably you could take up science maths. Yes it is a whole lot easier than TP maths granted but it is also very different and built upon similarly different 1st year science maths. Doable but don't believe you won't have to work fairly hard at it. The other full subjects in 2nd year science are Bio1, Bio2, Geography, Geology, Chemistry. But the only one of them you can/must take up is Geology (you'll actually have to buy colouring pencils for this course I kid you not) as it is the only one without prerequisites. You could conceivably then take your degree in geology too

Transferring from TP to the BA (mod) in physics, astrophysics or computational physics is allowed early on in 3rd year but not after afaik unless repeating the year.

notjim

so to contribute to the debate between irjfn and caffrey: the important mistake to avoid is the idea that intelligence is a scalar quantity.

as irjfn points out, because no subject has a monopoly on peoples attention, viable, exciting scientific areas are likely to attract people with equal abilities and it would be ridiculous to argue that what has been achieved in one is superior to what has been achieved in another. However, equal abilities is some sort of projection to a scalar of a vector quantity, different people have their abilities made up in different ways. TP is distinguished by depth, the ideas are very hard to grasp and people who can grasp precise but abstract and obtuse ideas of this sort are attracted to TP, the good parts of biology require creativity and breadth, a sort of cleverness not often shared by theoretical physicists. To construct a hierarchy of subjects is silly, they have different goals, different values and different working methods.

irjfn

Exactly notjim!

caffrey

Firstly I'd like you to not tell me whether i am proud of something or not, I am quite capable of making that conclusion myself. Also I am not trying to force anyone to see things my way, I am just giving my point of view. I personally find it hard. I learned things off sure, just as anyone learns things off, like medicine students surely learn off simptoms etc. I did also learn a lot of stuff that i needed to know off by heart but how to identify and figure out.

You can sit on your high and mighty horse and tell us how simple we are for not realising that you can just learn something as simple as TP off by heart, sure its just a bit of rote learning.

I am aware of the fact that there are many courses that arent run in different colleges around the world, this is obvious, however it is not obvious that the lecturer who runs this course allegedly was teaching QFT in a very reputable college to postgrads was apparently(don't quote me on this) told to discontinue it due to its difficulty. Your comment also does not take away from the difficulty of the subject.

If TP is so easy sure go ahead and solve all the outstanding problems in Physics today.

Last year there was one full question and two half questions from the problem sets on QM. There were 21 problem sets, an average of 3 problems a set= 63 problems, to learn off and only 3 of them come up on the exam and not even full questions, good luck with that.

I know that many great minds have gone to other realms, again an obvious point that we all needed pointing out by irjfn. Thanks for that. I again agree that many things are complex in many areas of the world if not I would figure it out in an afternoon. I was merely saying that there are many abstract problems which are not necessarily intuitive.

If you dont agree with me thats fine but dont tell me what I am or imply that i am simple and cannot figure out that james joyce was a great mind. What I stated are facts. Its hard for me so yes others will probably find it hard.

Nietzschean

And such ends lots of un-informed ranting.