8 ms·

That's quite impressive. Where are you from? I think even Cambridge, which is an outlier as far as the course level is concerned, only uses "Mechanics" as a rec

That's quite impressive. Where are you from? I think even Cambridge, which is an outlier as far as the course level is concerned, only uses "Mechanics" as a recommended textbook in the third year.

keldaris 9y ago
In most post-Soviet universities I've seen, Landau's idea of the theoretical minimum is well and alive. Depending on the professor, Landau isn't rare as required reading in undergrad courses, and the notion that you should be familiar with anything in Landau in graduate exams is also common.
- messe 9y ago
  Yup. As it happens a not insignificant amount of my lecturers are from Post-Soviet states, including the course director.
messe 9y ago
Apologies in advance for the long post, but it's been a lazy Friday and I've nothing better to do. I'm in Ireland, in Trinity College Dublin. The way the course (Theoretical Physics) as a whole is taught is rather odd compared to other universities. For various historical reasons, the theorists are staff of the mathematics department rather than the physics department. For other historical reasons, the Theoretical Physics (TP) course is separate to the Physics course and its teaching is split evenly between the Mathematics and Physics department. Due to the way the TP course is structured, we take a lot of rigorous and proof based maths in the first two years. Single- and Multi-variable Real Analysis, Calculus on Manifolds, Complex Analysis, Group Theory, and of course Linear Algebra are all covered rigorously. Fourier Analysis and ODEs are covered also, but less rigorously and more focused on applications. All of these modules are shared with the pure mathematics students. The Physics students on the other hand, are required to take another subject during their first two years. Most choose chemistry. Because of the additional subject they only take non-rigorous equivalents of some the above. Multivariable/Vector Calculus instead of Analysis, no Calculus on Manifolds at all, I'm not sure about complex analysis, no group theory, mostly computation based linear algebra. Their Fourier Analysis and ODE course are much the same as ours. So over the course of the first two years, the mathematical maturities of the TP students and physics students diverge significantly simply due to the topics that are studied. This, and the fact that theorists are in the maths department, has resulted in a lot of modules that would traditionally be the realm of the Physics department alone, being duplicated. The physics department teaches the physics students a certain topic, while the maths department teaches the TP (and pure maths) students the same topic, usually more in depth as there is less need to delve into the mathematical machinery behind it when the students are often already familiar with it. For example, next year the modules I'll be taking in the maths department are "Classical Field Theory", "Electrodynamics", "Quantum Mechanics" I & II, and "Statistical Physics" I & II. The Mechanics modules I mentioned earlier were also taken in the maths department. In 4th year, the gap widens further, as there is no way at all for physics students to take GR or QFT (as far as I can recall). These are only taught by the maths department, which also offers to TP students, depending on the year, modules on Algebraic Geometry, Group Representations, Lie Groups & Algebras, Differential Geometry (a prerequisite to GR here) and others.
- dleen 9y ago
  Graduate from 2008 here :) Certainly an intense course.
- keldaris 9y ago
  Those are immense differences. The TP course seems pretty solid, but the ordinary Physics program seems to have significant gaps, even granting that not every undergrad might need much differential geometry.
  - messe 9y ago
    I was (slightly) incorrect, there appears to be some QFT in a course on High Energy Physics. And I don't disagree with you. I think the split between the theorists in the maths department, and the experimentalists in the physics department (and, in turn the split between TP and Physics; not to mention outside pressures) has resulted in a course that's perhaps a bit too focused on experimental topics.

That's quite impressive. Where are you from? I think even Cambridge, which is an outlier as far as the course level is concerned, only uses "Mechanics" as a recommended textbook in the third year.

keldaris 9y ago

In most post-Soviet universities I've seen, Landau's idea of the theoretical minimum is well and alive. Depending on the professor, Landau isn't rare as required reading in undergrad courses, and the notion that you should be familiar with anything in Landau in graduate exams is also common.

messe 9y ago
Yup. As it happens a not insignificant amount of my lecturers are from Post-Soviet states, including the course director.

messe 9y ago

Apologies in advance for the long post, but it's been a lazy Friday and I've nothing better to do. I'm in Ireland, in Trinity College Dublin. The way the course (Theoretical Physics) as a whole is taught is rather odd compared to other universities. For various historical reasons, the theorists are staff of the mathematics department rather than the physics department. For other historical reasons, the Theoretical Physics (TP) course is separate to the Physics course and its teaching is split evenly between the Mathematics and Physics department. Due to the way the TP course is structured, we take a lot of rigorous and proof based maths in the first two years. Single- and Multi-variable Real Analysis, Calculus on Manifolds, Complex Analysis, Group Theory, and of course Linear Algebra are all covered rigorously. Fourier Analysis and ODEs are covered also, but less rigorously and more focused on applications. All of these modules are shared with the pure mathematics students. The Physics students on the other hand, are required to take another subject during their first two years. Most choose chemistry. Because of the additional subject they only take non-rigorous equivalents of some the above. Multivariable/Vector Calculus instead of Analysis, no Calculus on Manifolds at all, I'm not sure about complex analysis, no group theory, mostly computation based linear algebra. Their Fourier Analysis and ODE course are much the same as ours. So over the course of the first two years, the mathematical maturities of the TP students and physics students diverge significantly simply due to the topics that are studied. This, and the fact that theorists are in the maths department, has resulted in a lot of modules that would traditionally be the realm of the Physics department alone, being duplicated. The physics department teaches the physics students a certain topic, while the maths department teaches the TP (and pure maths) students the same topic, usually more in depth as there is less need to delve into the mathematical machinery behind it when the students are often already familiar with it. For example, next year the modules I'll be taking in the maths department are "Classical Field Theory", "Electrodynamics", "Quantum Mechanics" I & II, and "Statistical Physics" I & II. The Mechanics modules I mentioned earlier were also taken in the maths department. In 4th year, the gap widens further, as there is no way at all for physics students to take GR or QFT (as far as I can recall). These are only taught by the maths department, which also offers to TP students, depending on the year, modules on Algebraic Geometry, Group Representations, Lie Groups & Algebras, Differential Geometry (a prerequisite to GR here) and others.

dleen 9y ago
Graduate from 2008 here :) Certainly an intense course.
keldaris 9y ago
Those are immense differences. The TP course seems pretty solid, but the ordinary Physics program seems to have significant gaps, even granting that not every undergrad might need much differential geometry.
- messe 9y ago
  I was (slightly) incorrect, there appears to be some QFT in a course on High Energy Physics. And I don't disagree with you. I think the split between the theorists in the maths department, and the experimentalists in the physics department (and, in turn the split between TP and Physics; not to mention outside pressures) has resulted in a course that's perhaps a bit too focused on experimental topics.