My Degree: What I did right (I think)

This is a follow up to my article on what I'd have done differently in my degree (sort of). I'm talking about decisions that definitely benefited me that maybe not everyone would have made (or did make). This doesn't mean you should follow my decisions! Especially if you aren't looking to pursue a theoretical topic in physics academia. If however that is your goal, this may offer useful ideas for how to approach some decisions through your degree.

I didn't have any specialised 2nd year options that impacted my 3rd year

This may not apply to other physics courses but in at my previous uni there was a 'core' of 2nd year courses which every student (no matter their specialisation) had to take at some point. As a result, those who had specialised courses in their 2nd year had to take a 2nd year course in their 3rd year (hope that makes sense). This was true of particle physics and astrophysics course in my case.

The immediate issue I have with this is that you are robbed of a third year level course. This is not good in my books, you lose a significant portion of higher level teaching. Furthermore you end up stuck between two years in your 3rd year, this created no end of logistical and administrative issues for these students. This is not what you need in your third year.

If you can specialise in maths/theory in your second without consequences then do so!

I was willing to take modules on other areas of theory

You may not be able to fill your 3rd year module choices with options you love. Chances are you'll have to compromise on your modules, I certainly did, the term allocations and timetabling simply didn't add up unfortunately. I made sure that the module I took that I wasn't so interested in had a reasonable amount of theoretical content, in my case I did a module on 'superconductors and magnetism'. Solid state isn't my thing but the theory kept me reasonably interested and also taught me a fair bit.

My point here is that if you have to compromise, stick to a topic with a fair amount of maths in it. A module that focuses on the experimental side will not help you in theory!

I didn't take any 'easy' options

This might seem kind of arrogant so let me explain... 

It's fair to say that in any physics course 3rd year there are some options that are trickier than others. I think if you're interested in theory its definitely worth taking the trickier ones because these test you and expand your capabilities more. There is also no point in trying to play your module choice so you get a high mark (not at this stage anyway). Academics know which topics are harder than others so if you come up against someone who took harder modules than you... they will know.

What I'm trying to say is don't pick a course because you think you'll get a higher mark on it because it's 'easier'. Pick the courses you want to do, you'll probably do best on those anyway.

I had a very clear idea of where I wanted to go by 3rd year

Arguably I had a clear idea well before 3rd year but the point is that I could tailor my options very specifically to my goals. For some people this wasn't the case and they did a mix of everything. This is ok but don't expect two experiment focused modules to help your case in a theory PhD application...

Try and have a clear picture of your career goal if you can, if you want to go into academia it's beneficial to have a strong idea of the field you want to be in. This will inform your module choices well. 

Now this doesn't mean you have to know the title of your future project! But you should ideally know what sort of area you want to be in, i.e. particle theory or condensed matter theory.

I learned to love maths as much as physics (perhaps more so than physics...)

Physics students who have an equal passion for the mathematics they are using tend to get on much better in theoretical modules. Many of my colleagues saw maths as a tool box which they dragged their feet in learning. This meant for example that a lot of the particle physics orientated students didn't take advanced classical mechanics, so they would go into studying QFT next year without knowing Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalism (lots of catch up). 

To me that's a serious disadvantage for someone looking to studying particle physics from any angle. Loving maths means I enjoy all aspects of theoretical physics and don't see doing maths as just another task I have to do before the fun stuff... I actually enjoy it just as much! It also means I don't get put off by 'maths heavy' modules, which are usually the most useful ones.

By nature of physics you will learn at lot of maths at uni, probably more maths than 'physics' depending on who you ask. It's best to enjoy them both, it will make your life a lot easier.

How do you set yourself apart when studying theory?

The idea of doing extra work in an academic setting is probably nothing new to you. Whether it be to put something extra on your CV, personal skill development and expansion of knowledge etc. etc. there is no doubt that if you put in more work you'll get more out (how much more admittedly can vary).

So whatever the stage you're at in your degree, what 'extra' things can you do? Often it is hard when studying theoretical physics to identify these, they simply aren't as apparent as for experimentalists or other scientists generally (I think). Prospective theorists are, at first glance, in a similar predicament to mathematicians. But over my degree I learned that there is plenty you can do, somethings big and somethings small, to boost your prospects in theory.

Disclaimer: As always, this list is not exhaustive but includes all the major activities I've seen students undertake to enhance their opportunities.


Easier:


Do the optional problems:
Some people need not be told this, plenty of physicists are academic masochists by nature! But plenty of us (myself included) have periods of time where we neglect to push ourselves to do the harder optional problems at the end of a problem sheet or those mentioned in lecture. Try and work through this if you can, sometimes time restraints come into play but if you have the time do your best to attempt optional problems, they often reveal a lot more about the subject than the standard tasks.

Investigate problems that interest you:
This need not be solely related to your courses, of course if your lecturer mentions something and you want to investigate and play around please do! But sometimes interesting topics arise completely outside of university. Time for a personal example.

I play the electric guitar, the part of the guitar where the frets are fitted is called the fingerboard and on electric guitars it is 'radiused' (i.e. it has a curvature). Different electric guitars have different radii, one might follow a circle with a 9.5 inch radius (Fender style) and another a 12 inch (Gibson style). A lot of musicians talk about how different radii feel, but I was interested in an actual numerical comparison. So I used Mathematica to plot various radii aligning a point on the circumference of the radii. Whilst this was a nice comparative diagram, it isn't very numerical so I compared the difference in distance between a flat fretboard and the surface of a given radius fretboard at the edge of the a standard Fender guitar neck. In doing so I was able to express this distance as a function of the radius, illuminating me as to 'how flat' certain radii actually are...

Yes I did actually do this in my spare time, that is something I might do on an afternoon and as you might be able to tell... I really enjoyed it. It was also great practise for Mathematica and some problem solving. So if you ask a question (or someone you know does) and the answer isn't immediately apparent, try and work out an answer!

READ!
You knew it was coming and here it is. But I don't mean trawl through thousands of pages of dry textbook material. First lets identify 'useful things you can read':

• Textbooks
• Journal Articles
• Popular Science Books
• Online articles (e.g. Wikipedia)

These are good for different things. If your lecturer mentions something specific in class that interests you, a textbook might suit. If they mention a piece of research that catches your ear, go read the Journal Article! What if it's too high level? Well maybe a PhysicsWorld article would be a better starting point. If you're in first year the particle physics behind dark matter research is not likely to be accessible for at that point. But a popular science book could provide some valuable conceptual insight that would prepare you for studying the real physics behind the ideas! Huge pdf's are also available, like the entire Feynman lectures which cost over £100 for a physical copy. Ultimately all these sources can benefit you, no matter what stage of studying. The more information you can absorb the better!

Watch/listen to lectures and science communicators:

YouTube is an established learning platform, with an enormous wealth of material that can benefit your studies available for free! This is also something you can do whilst doing other things, useful to keep your mind from rusting up if you need a break from the more intense activities in physics.

Many universities have published recordings of their lecture courses, i.e. Stanford, which are complete lecture courses on subjects like general relativity. There are also historic lectures like recordings of Richard Feynman, which are still very insightful and can often aid your conceptual outlook on problem solving. Public lectures are also useful if you haven't really traversed a subject yet, providing a conceptual grounding for you to work from.

Popular physics/maths channels are also great, I imagine most of you follow at least some of the following: 3Blue1Brown, Domain of Science (whose map series I love), MinutePhysics, Numberphile, Sixty Symbols, Kurzgesagt - In A Nutshell and I'm sure there are many many more! Some of these offer nice introductory reminders and inspiration with nice graphics (e.g. Kurzgesagt) and others offer higher level content (e.g. 3Blue1Brown).

Talk with your colleagues and lecturers:

If there's one thing I regret about how I handled my degree it's the fact I didn't engage with fellow theory students or try to talk to my lecturers more. The students who did clearly benefited from it and I think it had a very positive effect on their academic performance. This not only exposes you to new ideas but the networking is invaluable, giving you sources of advice to turn especially if you develop a good working relationship with lecturers.

Harder:

An industrial placement scheme:

Many university physics departments have specific placement schemes that offer tailored industry experience. As an aspiring theorist it is understandably tempting to dismiss this as a waste of time, with it being so different to theoretical physics academia. But some placements offer experiences relevant to theoretical physics skills. Although I ended up doing something different I was planning on applying to a data fitting placement (in a solid state physics setting) that would have given me practise with programming and function manipulation etc. These kind of placements usually revolve around programming so make sure you're up to speed on that.

A large scale research placement scheme:

Now this is HARD. The classic placement is the CERN final year 'internship' but plenty of people go to Japan, America, South Korea etc. Usually placements are available on experiments, particular in particle physics, but there can be analysis opportunities at experiments if you're willing to dig. You have to accept with these placements that the chances are you won't really be doing 'theory'. But that doesn't mean they can't do great things for you, plus they are often well funded.

A research placement with a university academic:

Sometimes universities run a formal scheme for this, others don't. This could be at your own university or at another and like large scale placements they are very competitive. For a theorist this is often the best route because university academics are more willing to let students pursue a theoretical topic. I was lucky enough to start my Bachelors thesis early in the form of a summer research placement. A stereotypical example is the UCL particle physics placement scheme that assigns you to a UCL academic to undertake a research project. But beware, these placements are not always funded and if they are they are not usually funded as well as the previous two.

Note: You can do more than one of these! Experimentalists often do an industrial placement in their 2nd year and a research placement in their 3rd year.

I hope that's given you some ideas for some things to do alongside your regular studies!

  

Projects/research modules vs taught classes

Whilst I was looking at masters courses at the beginning of last academic year, I spoke to two particle theorists about the advantages of taught and research components of a masters course. Instead of gaining clarity I was actually given two completely different answers! Here's what they said

The first academic told me that if he was looking for a PhD student he would value more extensive research experience. His background was in developing more precise calculation methods for particle collider experiments, specifically the LHC. He had done his undergrad in Germany and PhD in the US. His view point was that the best way to show you were ready to undertake a serious research project was to do a bit of research! Which makes sense right? As a student it would also give you confidence to have dipped your toe in the water before you dive in, surely?

The second held the opposite opinion. He suggested that having a large taught component was crucial as for particle theory understanding field theory well was something he would need a prospective PhD student to have. Such extra knowledge was crucial for getting into a theory PhD. He also had some interesting points about research projects. He pointed out that a research project is worth very little to an admissions officer as it's not complete. In the case of masters courses especially, the chances are you won't have even started your research project by the time the PhD cycle is finished. So it was better to have on your transcript that you were set to take a large number of high level courses, that would demonstrate your competence. This... also makes sense.

In an ideal world we want to take loads of high level courses whilst also embarking on a large ambitious research project which we can have evidence of by the time we are applying for a PhD...

There is a name for this. It's called a theoretical physics PhD!

So unfortunately for us we have to make a decision and it is most certainly not clear cut. I'm going to try and pick apart the above opinions and throw some of my own experiences and opinions into the mix. With luck, this will aid you in making a decision about what kind of course you want or what choices you should make on your current course.

It depends on what field you want to go into

The two academics might have both come from particle theory but they did very different things. The second lecturer worked on astroparticle phenomenology, developing new models to provide dark matter particle candidates for example. This is a less 'applied' area than the first lecturer's research topic.

(Image Credit: Domain of Science)

The more applied theorist wanted research skills and the more abstract one required higher level topics to be covered. This is often the case, to get into condensed matter PhDs for example doesn't always need a masters for instance! Different fields and areas within those fields have certain skill requirements, after you have fore-filled that they would like you to fill your remaining course credits with research based activities. For highly theoretical topics like string theory, quantum gravity etc. a project is in some academics eyes not remotely useful. The Cambridge Part III doesn't feature a project and is (probably) the most common route into such topics.

So making an assessment of the field you would like to go into and how high the skill level required is could be key for you making a decision. It is also a good idea to ask the most relevant academic you can talk to, for me I'm interested in topics closer to the second academic than the first so I weighted his opinion more in my decision making.

It depends on the types of institutions you're applying to

This isn't exactly a concrete/objective observation, but I think it's worth considering. Some institutions (i.e. Oxbridge) would be associated with preference to a larger number of high level taught courses, this is certainly suggested by the masters courses they offer. Sussex (disclaimer: a university I applied to for masters and received and offer from for Particle Physics MSc) is a university who's postgraduate courses have a large research component, I would expect them to like applicants who have done sizeable research projects.

This is a sweeping statement but... Universities with a public 'reputation' typically prefer taught courses and 'research focused' universities typically prefer research projects. I do not mean 'good uni's' like taught courses and 'bad uni's' like research modules' not at all. What I have in mind is that a great uni like Southampton doesn't expect you to have a masters in their entry requirements for PhD, so demonstrating research skills in your masters may well be more useful than taking loads of taught courses. Conversely a more 'traditional' uni like Durham would probably prefer taught courses for their PhD. This is not even a rule of thumb, just something I feel I've noticed in researching masters courses and PhD programmes.

I can't comment on institutions outside of the UK, I just don't have the experience or knowledge to provide good advice.

Which one are you better at? Which one do you like more?

A simple but crucial question. If you're lucky enough to be great at both, well done, but I don't think that's usual. Myself for example, my highest grade at undergraduate was my 3rd year project. So I guess I should have chosen a masters with a large research project! But that doesn't suit my PhD topic of interest so I chose a primarily taught course. However, grades are crucial for PhD admissions so if there could be a difference in what classification you achieve depending on the balance of taught vs research modules consider the implications seriously.

Alongside this, you should be enjoying what you're doing! If you prefer research take a more research heavy course, your enjoyment will probably enhance your grade.

Research projects are good learning experiences

I learned A LOT from my third year research project. I learnt a lot about what theory was not and stuff that theory was that I had no idea about! There are things that research can teach you that I think you really can't learn from standard physics courses. You might have experienced this you have/had to take lab classes in your first (potentially second) years. Even as a theorist you might find something like fitting a curve to data using Python or interpreting and applying an equation to data reveals new things to you in this 'research' situation because you have lots of time to play around with the ideas and apply them broadly. 

Now this probably isn't a reason to alter the size of project you want. But it is an incentive to choose a masters with a research component (i.e. not the Part III) or to take some research components in your degree if you have options in that regard.

Is a compromise worth a uni you're chasing?

So you want a big research project but you just got an offer from Oxford... yeah, dilemma. Oxford is maybe a bad example because grabbing that level of prestige that could carry you far in a PhD admissions process. But my point is that the contention of 'dream' uni vs better suited course structure happens. 

In all honesty, your decision should be based on what you think the best suited course is. Try to remove your preconceptions and personal alignments, choose the course with the best looking modules and course features, taking teaching quality into account if you can as well.

There you have it, I hope that's useful for anyone facing decisions regarding research and taught modules.

MSc vs MSci

MSci is quickly becoming *the* route for physicists from all walks, whether you be aiming for industrial or academic research. Despite the fact that almost all those in my cohort who were aiming to become theorists went with the MSci programme, I choose to leave after three years with a BSc and do a separate MSc. In the interests of fairness I'd like to first argue (quite generally) why I (or you) should follow an MSci programme. After that I'll explain my reasoning for doing an MSc and why I think for some people its a better option.

General Outlook

There's no doubting a serious advantage of the MSci is that you are fully funded for tuition fees and provided a maintenance grant for your fourth year. You don't have to make a new funding application or apply for a new course either! Whilst these might just seem like simple practicalities I can't deny that the process of applying for a masters course was stressful and that the fact that my funding only covers my tuition fees is difficult!

There's also the continuity of your study, you maintain friends and links with academics for longer. If you're on the University of London intercollegiate programme this won't be the case so much but for all other MSci programmes you'd certainly benefit from this. 

Many programmes also have research skill modules structured throughout the third and fourth years for MSci students, this is something you would likely miss out on if you do a BSc followed by an MSc. In general universities recommend MSci programmes rather than MSc programmes. The good reason for this recommendation is that the MSci is being developed as *the* route into PhD.

Now here's my caveat. I think the MSci is probably the best route for most physicists, except in the following cases:

• You don't like your current university for genuinely good reasons and want to study somewhere else.
• You feel you need to study at a more reputable university to improve your chances of achieving your career goals.
• Your university doesn't offer modules on the masters level subjects you want to study or/and doesn't go to a high enough level of study for the career you are pursuing (topics like particle theory and mathematical physics come to mind).
• You need a clean slate for your grades. This is very specific. If you finish second year in a difficult position and are aware that you might be limited in third year and corresponding fourth year, you can do an MSc which is independent of your previous BSc and hope to better on the MSc. This is route that can (and I stress only 'can') provide you a second chance at getting into PhD.

I'd like to address each of these cases specifically.

If you don't like your current uni, have serious think about whether your course is actually bad or whether you're the problem. I know this seems harsh but over the course of my degree I heard plenty of complaints that made me think the following:

• You signed up to do a physics degree. This and all other uni's courses are not easy, that is not going to change wherever you go.
• If you don't have many friends (I was in this position so I know its hard) going somewhere else does not guarantee that you'll make friends or enjoy the environment any better.
• Lecture quality is not guaranteed, surveys are in my opinion usually pretty useless because everyone wants different things from lecturers. I've had lecturers that I thought were objectively bad who others loved and vice versa. Do not move for 'lecture quality'. If you know people at other uni's who you trust and have relevant experience you may be able to make a more informed decision regarding this.
• Add-ons like gyms, societies etc. are not reasons to ditch your course. If you are thinking like that you might find cutting your studies at BSc and going into employment might make you happier.

They are good reasons to want to not like your current uni:

• Your uni is not offering you support that you need, this could be regarding mental health, physical disabilities, accounting for childcare difficulties and more. If you uni is not supporting you through such difficulties I would strongly suggest you move onto a uni that will.
• You've been affected by a serious incident at your university. This could include being the victim of a criminal offence, assaults and sexual assaults are sadly very common at universities, it is understandable that your studies could be irreversibly affected by such an incident and that moving on could give you the clean slate you need.
• You are experiencing family difficulties that mean you may need to be closer to home. This could include a member of your family being ill or your commute affecting the amount of time you can spend with your partner and/or children.

Reputation is difficult to quantify but there is no doubt that grads from high reputation universities like Oxbridge enjoy heightened career prospects. But doing an MSc is not a decision to make unmeasured. Here are some reasons not to transfer to an MSc for an academic reputation boost:

• Because you don't feel like you went to a 'good enough' uni. If you just want a reputation boost for the sake of it, trust me, nothing is going to fill that hole. I've been there and it requires an attitude change not a new uni.
• You are looking for an unspecific career boost. If you just think that you need to try and up your career prospects without a specific goal or career based reason in mind going to a new uni to do an MSc is not a good idea. An MSci will offer you this and I'd argue that an MSci is better for industry than an MSc, somewhere you are more likely to end up if you don't have a specific academic career goal.
• You are going into a career that values high repute degrees but one where a masters doesn't really count. I'm looking at you prospective investment bankers (some roles) and non-scientific consultants. Take a serious look at whether having a masters is actually going to improve your prospects or whether the employer is likely to only care about your BSc. 

Here are some good reasons to go for a MSc at a higher reputation university:

• Employers you are looking at like Masters level students and care about degree reputation. An typical employment field like this would be defence, they love uni's like Southampton that have a reputation for producing graduates suited to defence work.
• You want to go into a very competitive area of academia like particle theory or maths and you need every edge you can get. If you can up your academic reputation it could be what you need to get a PhD offer.

If your uni doesn't offer the right modules for you or they aren't to a high enough level that's a serious motivation to move elsewhere. But sometimes our feelings are a bit mixed up in this observation. If you feel that you aren't 'personally' studying at a high enough level, its the wrong reason. If there's no concrete reason other than your own academic thirst then simply read outside the course. The course content is about what you are qualified in, your ego shouldn't influence what that needs to be for you. 

If however the course doesn't provide you with the skills and material you need to be qualified in for your career goal, that's a good reason to move. This I feel is particularly relevant for particle theorists and those wanting to change over to the mathematics side of things, many people go to the Cambridge Part III in this case. If you have a very specific industry career in mind this is also relevant, you might even want to cross-over into a different subject and do a mechanical engineering MSc for example.

I don't think the grades reasoning needs explaining anymore, so I'll move onto my own experience/reasoning.

Why I choose MSc

My initial motivation for switching to a BSc and carrying onto an MSc was a personal matter that affected me adversely at university. This also had a pretty serious impact on my second year grades. I felt I needed a clean slate both environmentally and grade wise.

Further to this my career aspirations lie in particle theory/mathematics. To maximise my chances of a highly theoretical and non-computational PhD I felt I needed to attend a course with higher level content, more specific instruction with regards to pure mathematics and a university with a reputation for getting its postgraduates into particle theory PhDs. Particle theory and related mathematics are however particularly competitive so this is a more niche situation than usual. Successful PhD candidates in this field usually come from courses like the Cambridge Part III. MSc's also give you more tuition, you get to study more modules and do your project over the summer rather than alongside your taught modules. I personally preferred the idea of getting to study more topics, the idea of having only five taught modules really didn't sit well with me, certainly not for my career path.

You can probably identify that some of the reasons I just listed align with those above. I think I made a very good call and hopefully it will get me to where I want to go. Whilst its not right for everyone, you should be aware its an option and that it could offer you some serious advantages depending on your intentions.

IP 1.4: Beginning strings

Some of the content I covered this week focuses on string theory and not really in a popular science context. You would need a decent understanding of particle physics at the least to get something out of these lectures, some of them you'll need much more knowledge. Nevertheless here's what I've been absorbing (trying to) this week gone.

'The State of String Theory' - Brian Greene (2008?)

Greene is a well known proponent of string theory but this lecture is different from the theatrical pop. sci. he is often known for. A review of the field at the time is present, bare in mind the Higgs hadn't been found yet and low energy SUSY wasn't ruled out yet either.

Greene is confident but at the same time fairer than some string theorists are about the merits and current deficits of the theory. The content doesn't dive too deep, I understood pretty much everything without having formally studied the subject. He can come across as a bit cocky, but plenty of theorists do. His dismissal of LQG didn't exactly sit well with me, he basically said that he hadn't read much about it but didn't like it anyway. But I'm biased here so take that for what you will, I just think one should be open to approaches outside their own.

I found this a really good introduction to strings pre-LHC findings, its by no means an introduction to the mathematics and mechanics of the theory but gives you an idea of current research. Worth a watch for anyone wanting an idea of what's being going on in strings.

String Compactifications (Lecture 1) - Edward Witten (2008)

If the previous lecture was an introduction this is pretty much the exact opposite. I'd be lying if I said I understood more than 50% of this conceptually... probably a lot less, lets not even make an estimate for mathematical understanding. Witten strikes me as very humble and to the point, he gets straight to it and doesn't let up. In spite of the dense mathematics he regularly contextualises the working in particle physics with relation to the underlying group structure of the standard model and GUTs. With my conceptual understanding of differential geometry I was able to get through most of it without feeling completely lost.

I think more importantly for me it was an absolute blast to watch. When a physicist wins a Fields Medal (the only one ever to do so)... you should definitely watch them lecture at least once. Witten is also a really strong speaker, very clear and calm, which gives you the best opportunity to (try to) understand what he's talking about. If you love particle theory, just do it.

Newton Medal Winner (2010) - Edward Witten

This 30 minute interview is interesting, seeing a bit of the life and research history behind one of the biggest names in string theory. Witten (again) speaks very clearly and you can see that he carefully considers what he's saying. But more than anything his humility and causality comes through, he seems very human though un-relatable due to the lightness with which he speaks of his enormous achievements. If you want to see the more human side of particle theory I'd definitely suggest watching this.

'Why Meat is the Best Worst Thing in the World' - Kurzgesagt

Let's preface this with my own relevant opinions: I do eat meat, I don't eat a lot of it though and I am conscious of the impact eating meat has on the environment and animals. At the same time I am also sceptical of a lot of arguments for veganism, less so for vegetarianism.

This is a nice summary video that I feel is relevant for those on either side of the debate. But this isn't so much about whether eating meat is right or wrong and more about the impact of eating meat and what we might do about it. They make a statement I very much agree with, "Eating meat doesn't make you a bad person. Not eating meat doesn't make you a bad person."

They mention the fact that almost all male chicks are slaughtered very soon after birth, the energy efficiency of certain animals etc. The main issues and concepts they covered also feature in the documentary "Before the Flood". It would have been nice if the video also covered some more concrete reasons to carry on eating meat other than enjoyment and social reasons, nutritional value etc. I also thought they could have covered fish as well, though maybe that's enough of an issue itself to be featured in another video. If you're new to this subject I'd suggest reading more widely to supplement this video.

Topics to revise before you start or whilst starting your physics degree

Some people may have already started their courses but plenty haven't and this really applies to your whole first year...

You'll notice plenty of these are maths topics and yes, you will spend a lot of your time doing maths! No matter your specific interests in physics all these topics will be useful to you. As always, this list is not exhaustive. I've given a brief description of why I think its useful to revise a give topic but this is more of a list than an article.

(Image Credit: LinkedKey)

You'd be lucky to go a lectures in physics without using a sizeable amount of calculus. For differentiation have the chain and product rules easily deploy-able, quotient rule is less common but never hurts to be prepared. Have integration by parts and some common substitutions in your head as well. Physicists often memorise standard results, usually e.g. for trigonometric functions. You should have the basic trig. functions results memorised, hyperbolic trig. functions are something a number of students haven't covered before so don't worry about those (yet).

(Image Credit: The Great Courses)

These are also very useful and crop up all the time in physics. Its fair to say that different A-level specifications cover different topics in differential equations and to different levels. But revising anything you've covered regarding differential equations would be very helpful for your coming studies.

(Image Credit: YouTube)

In A-level physics they really don't convey to you quite how important SHM/SHO is for so many problems you'll look at in your degree. You'll study this example a lot more and link it to differential equations in your degree. But having a really strong understanding of the material you covered at A-level on SHO will definitely come in useful.

(Image Credit: Bob Koberlein)

Yes, although not circuit theory so much. And certainly not in the guise of the above Lagrangian... The most important thing is your understanding of electric and magnetic fields and how the combined field (electromagnetic field) effects systems like free charged particles. You'll probably study the basics of classical electrodynamics in your first year and a strong conceptual basis will make this a lot easier.

(Image Credit: Book Depository)

Like can link into electromagnetism. Understanding frequency, wavelength, amplitude and such is very important. Knowing about photons and the consequences of the photo electric effects (some concepts in quantum mechanics basics can help too) will also come in useful. The de Brogile wavelength and associated foundations of quantum mechanics will be useful later as well.

(Image Credit: TeePublic)

You knew you'd need it. A classical mechanics module will inevitably come up in your first term, it will work up from where you left of at A-level. Some courses revise the infamous 'SUVAT' equations others won't. My advice is to treat this like calculus, its really bread and butter stuff you need to have it at your command. Rotational mechanics will be expanded on significantly so make sure you are good with the basics you did at A-level. Newtonian gravity will also come up.

(Image Credit: David Huynh)

Your understanding of vectors may be from a trigonometric point of view or a column vector point of view. Both will be useful, vectors are another key piece of mathematics that physicists use all the time and you will only use them more as you progress through your course.

(Image Credit: ShowMe)

Ah you thought you'd be leaving this behind and getting straight to string theory... not yet. You'll study classical matter theory at some point in your first two years (likely your first), ideal gases will be featuring on a regular basis. Any other material you covered relating to solids, liquids and gases will probably be useful too.

(Image Credit: Kaggle)

Yep, I hate them but labs are a part of physics degrees (most of them anyway). The experiments you do are often very different to A-level but your ability to work with data is very transferable. Understanding errors, fitting data, interpreting equations in a graphical context and all that stuff is all going to come in useful. More formal statistics is also going to be important, mapping standard deviations (a basic example) are something you'll use all the time (I know to some other sciences the idea of SDs being more advanced is laughable but trust me... many physics students arrive thinking they won't need stats). I'd also encourage you to learn some coding, Python is a common language in physics, I wish I had...

Things that you won't actually need...

You might be saddened to here that you won't need material from the following areas (at least not immediately):

• Particle physics (typically 3rd year)
• Nuclear physics (typically 2nd year)
• Astrophysics (across 2nd/3rd year, sometimes a bit in 1st year)

You'll be glad to here that most courses cover some basic quantum mechanics and special relativity in the first year. These are the modern topics most students look forward to, but for my money the more classical topics can be just as much fun!

If you haven't covered some of the above topics in great detail don't worry, everyone goes into university knowing some stuff others don't and not knowing stuff others do. The first year is designed to get everyone on a level playing field, then the meat mincer of second year starts! I reckon the top three most important are: Calculus, Classical Mechanics and Statistics. The others you could pickup along the way but a basic understanding of these is key!

IP 1.3: Black Holes and Pop. Sci.

Sorry for this being a day late, a mix of material this week, some heavier some very light. Covering more interesting stuff this week, expect a string heavier entry next time!

"How We Could Build a Moon Base TODAY - Space Colonization 1" -Kurzgesagt (In a Nutshell):

Another delightful sub 10 minute animated video covering the wonders and potential of science from an easy and accessible angle. Whilst I'm sure the video isn't necessarily immensely thorough in its calculations and research the principle is there. It makes a very good conceptual case for a moon base though I feel it doesn't necessarily address a number of serious issues, such as whether we should colonise other astronomical bodies given our track record of looking after earth...

That said Kurzgesagt videos usually bring a smile to my face and this is no different. Well worth 10 minutes of your day whether you are a scientist or a science fan.

"Inside Black Holes" - Leonard Susskind

I took a break from the GR lecture series for this lighter lecture. I've seen it described as a lecture but it seems more like a talk or open seminar to me. Having some GR and QM under your belt would help you get more out of it but I reckon someone who's read some pop. sci. books at A level would be able to follow a fair amount of this. I'll confess I skipped the questions at the end.

The lecture isn't particularly technical, initially its entirely conceptual and there's not much maths in it at all (though knowing some of the maths behind it helps). He talks about the classical GR picture and then moves on to discuss the integration of quantum mechanics into black hole physics and then some outlook of theory in area at the time the lecture was given (2013). Overall I found the lecture very accessible and a pleasant watch. Again Susskind is a strong speaker, the humour in this one between himself and his colleagues might not be for everyone, I found it got a little in the way but not enough to detract from the talk. His focus on using actual words to discuss the problem is a welcome break from many university lecture courses. If you like GR and black holes this is a nice casual (as in easy not regarding causality) watch.

"Map of Science" - Domain of Science

Taking a nice wide view of, well all formally studied subjects there are, Domain of Science maps a progression from philosophy all the way to the arts. Not only is it fun but it raises an important point, the progression of the complexity of the systems studied in different fields (i.e. physics studies simpler systems than biology) and the fact that less traditional scientific methods have to be employed because the 'science' itself is actually harder. The replicability crisis in psychology is also mentioned though I feel he doesn't give the subject in its current form enough credit for its level of rigour. Apart from that this is a very nice video and I want a copy of the poster...

"Mathematical Physics 02" - Carl Bender - PSI 2011/2012

The first lecture in this series was really good and I decided to pick it up again this week. I think these lectures are really applicable to almost any area of theory, basically anyone who deals in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. Topics include asymptotics, differential equations, perturbation series and links with complex analysis. These methods are linked back to problems like the Schrodinger equation and related examples like perturb oscillators then some conceptual links to QFT. There are also some really interesting insights regarding quantisation, these stood out to me as being the most interesting material in the lecture. 

I would approach this lecture having a good understand of differential equations, quantum mechanics and perturbation theory if possible, knowing some complex analysis would definitely help you get more out of the lecture as well. The lectures are really well delivered, enthusiastic and detailed. These are actual class lectures so be prepared for interruptions, all part of the fun.