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.

My Degree: What I would have done differently

A bit of a cliche topic perhaps but I'm aiming to communicate some useful lessons I learned in the hope you can make use of them. My degree was certainly not perfect and that was at least partly due to decisions I made, so here's a critique of some of them.

Disclaimer: You'll note that most of these are things I neglected to do, that's a character trait not a general rule. I don't follow the whole 'you regret the things you don't do', don't take that away from this article.

Not talking with academics enough:

This is first because its probably my biggest regret! In my last year I sat down with a few theorists and had some in-depth career discussions with them but apart from that I had minimal contact with the academic staff in my department. I asked questions in lectures from time to time, also provided answers to questions thrown to the audience and occasionally asked questions after lectures had finished. It would be fair to say that no member of academic staff would really recognise me or know my name, I blended into the background.

Now my regret about being in this position is that I saw other students who actively engaged with academic staff on regular basis benefiting from their improved student-academic relations! They found it easier to seek the help of lecturers with regards to coursework problems or material they were struggling with. Many of them also engaged in high-level discussions regarding material beyond the current course level or current research, the benefit of this was immense. This enabled them to converse with entire groups of academics and become an edition of the academic culture at the uni.

I feel that this is something I really should have made more of an effort on, by asking lecturers more questions after lectures for example. I would advise you to try and develop a good working relationship with your lecturers and other academic staff, it will really benefit you (as well as being good networking).

Not pushing myself beyond the taught curriculum early enough:

Whilst I read outside of the course throughout my entire degree I didn't really push myself to study higher level material regularly until my third year. This was something I did readily at GCSE and A-Level but I had a bit of a blip for two years, for some just and some unjust reasons. I would encourage you (if you want to pursue physics in academia particularly) to look above the course material and always stretch your mind.

This not only prepares you better for the next stages of study but also continually improves your problem solving skills and makes current work easier in comparison to your extension work! It also feeds into achieving conversations with lecturers, often they are more likely to converse with a student who is extending themselves beyond the course and becoming a more rounded physicist. It also help to read about the area they are researching...

I benefited a lot from pushing myself in this way during my final year and would encourage you to do so from the very beginning of your degree! The students who did this were often top of the class.

Not spending enough time in the library:

It didn't dawn on me until about halfway through my degree quite how useful the following things were:

• Knowing the library's collection of physics texts and knowing what they are good for
• Using whiteboards and having a good size of study space
• Using library space in the evening when other students are often being loud outside your accommodation
• Getting out of your accommodation to provide a fresh environment when you are struggling to work

Plain and simple, the library ended up being a very good friend of mine and I'd suggest you befriend yours!

Not maintaining a hobby:

I spent the best part of six years getting a black belt in a martial art, I carried on training in that and another for a further two years before I came to uni. Needless to say it was a serious hobby and I put a lot into it. 

When I went to university I made a moderate effort to find a new club to join, I tried out two other classes but I didn't do more than that. I didn't really like either of them and I told myself I would look elsewhere. In the end I never did and I spent three years without a hobby I still have a serious attachment too. 

I regret that decision and would encourage you to pursue your hobbies as you transfer from A-Level to uni and throughout your degree if you can.

Organise your study from the offset:

I didn't initially structure my studies and it took me until about my third year to figure out how to get it right. I would suggest not leaving it that long...

I've mentioned before that I struggle with schedules and I require an element of flexibility but everyone needs a timetable of sorts, I didn't implement a stringent enough one early enough. I had periods of time where I was handing in multiple problem sheets the night before they were due through my first two years, this was purely due to scheduling problems of my own making.

Plan ahead and get work in ahead of schedule if you can! This is far more easily achieved with a good schedule in place. And revise from the outset... more on this another time.


So there's five things I think I should have done differently in my degree, fingers crossed you won't end up regretting similar decisions in yours! 

IP 1.2: GR and LQG

Some different material this week, a bit more formal but very enjoyable! This isn't as accessible for anyone below undergrad level physics and I think you might struggle to contextualise some of these materials if you haven't studied  some GR and have some conceptual understanding of QFT (like in a particle physics course). But for those of you seeking to extend yourselves go for it! I also watched a more accessible (kind of popular science) lecture which might appeal to anyone who enjoys science.

General Relativity Lectures by Leonard Susskind - Stanford Series

Plenty of you will be familiar with the Stanford Lecture series' on YouTube, a huge number of courses are there fully recorded. I've been refreshing my GR knowledge (slowly but surely), the course starts off with some SR and slowly gets into metrics and such. Susskind is very eloquent and provides a good level of detail without losing the big picture. It will be interesting to see where this series leads, I'm not that far through the series yet.

Introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity by Carlo Rovelli - Quantum Gravity at CPT Marseille

Quantum gravity is my passion and this lecture series by Rovelli is a real treat. The first few lectures are high conceptual, this is a bonus for me because quantum gravity is such a broad problem that getting into the nitty gritty too early can narrow your view. Rovelli is a first grade speaker and doesn't pull punches. He's quite happy to say that a claim within the community is "bullshit", a level of confidence I appreciate in a lecturer. If you want some lectures on LQG, this is the place to go.

Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity - Carlo Rovelli and Francesca Vidotto

This LQG textbook is (I believe) the second from Rovelli, the first one was published nearly 15 years ago and is a very very high level book that I found pretty inaccessible at the time I looked at it (the best part of 3 years ago). This second text is far more introductory and like the lecture series above starts from a very wide view point. This is incredibly useful in educating people on what quantum gravity is and what it isn't, as well as approaching the topic at an accessible angle and pace. I've been slowly digesting the pages and whilst I'm not far through I'm already happy to recommend this text (and highly as well).

"The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge" (Dr Robbert Dijkgraaf) - Talks at Google

I've mentioned Dr Dijkgraaf before and this lecture is just a strong as his others. A really good talk that looks conceptually at the place of academic research from a historical context and makes a strong case for supporting physics research. This was an easy but pleasant and inspiring watch, worth a view if you've got an hour to spare.


And that's my coverage for this week! If you're looking to learn more (or start learning) about GR or LQG these are a few places to look and a more conceptual lecture definitely worth a watch.

Why is theoretical physics useful?

A question that you'll get thrown your way from all angles throughout your career. From the public, physicists from different areas, other areas of science and mathematicians. The work of theoretical physicists is increasingly under attack from those outside it and also those within it. Now of course science should always be subject to critique, but it easy to feel shaken by the level of criticism thrown at theory.

Jibes from fellow students who have taken a more experimental route suggesting theorists don't really do science. Mathematicians saying that theorists never prove anything and aren't thorough enough, suggesting maths is a more 'intellectually superior' route. Those from other scientific disciplines can also be very harsh. I had a chemistry teacher once say that theoretical physicists just turned up to conferences with their "pony-tails" to talk about nothing (I have long hair now so I find this even more offensive...). More rightly come questions from the public as to how theorists can benefit them.

Perhaps this is a bit of karma though, it is not unheard of for theoretical physicists to be associated with a superiority complex. Now that a lot of the work of popularised particle theory (like string theory and super-symmetry) is under stress due to the exploration of higher energy scales at the LHC, perhaps all those who felt bullied by theory now have the ammunition they need to exact vengeance!

(Image Credit: Quora)

This is absolutely not about starting arguments but giving you confidence that theory is useful! Both historically and at present. I'll throw in a few examples to counter specific critics as well though... (just for fun). Here's a few reasons why theory is important!

Theory develops new mathematics! (one for the mathematicians)
Most of the time theorists are busy trying to apply mathematics to develop new methods for physics, but sometimes theorists end up solving problems in mathematics or even developing entire new ideas in mathematics! Dr Robert Dijkgraaf (a mathematical physicist) gave a lecture at the Perimeter Institute titled 'The Unreasonable Effect of Quantum Physics in Modern Mathematics' in 2014 (find it on YouTube and watch it). He explains how a problem in algebraic geometry was solved by string theorists working with Calabi-Yau manifolds. 

(Image Credit: Newcastle University)

The problem was to find the number of solutions to the so called 'quintic equation' (not a degree five polynomial, you can prove this to be unsolvable using Galois theory), specific to a given degree of curve. In other words to find the number of linear, quadratic, cubic etc. solutions to the quintic equation. Mathematicians worked out the numbers for linear and quadratic solutions analytically, but when it came to cubics they ended up turning to computational methods. Turns out that string theorists had not only the number of cubics but knew the number of every degree of solution analytically! Dijkgraaf adds much more detail and tells the story very well so go watch the lecture, but the point is sometimes theorists beat mathematicians to it (if not very often).

Historically theorists have made good predictions
Concerns regarding string theory and super-symmetry draw current theorists predictions into doubt but historical theory has done very well. Paul Dirac correctly predicted the existence of anti-matter (specifically the positron), Peter Higgs did the same for the Higgs boson. Glashow, Salam and Weinberg formulated electroweak theory which was validated by the discovery of the W and Z bosons. And all these just in particle theory (there are many others in particle theory)! BSC theory has been immeasurably successful in predicting super-conductor phenomena for condensed matter physics. Outside of specific fields of theory, quantum mechanics (specifically QED) has been shown to be ridiculously precise.

(Image Credit: Know Your Meme)

I think a lot of the present distrust of theory is due to the public nature of string theory and super-symmetry. It's not 'in' publicly to be improving cross-section calculation methods for the LHC or researching condensed matter, but these are two areas that come to my mind when I think of areas of theory that are being very productive at present. So whilst theory might be perceived to be going through a rough patch, that might not be entirely the case and it certainly hasn't been previously.

Knowledge moves down the chain
Lets address my chemistry teacher's attitude. Modern chemistry is dependent on the foundations quantum mechanics laid nearly a century ago. Quantum information science is moving into computer science, biology is utilising statistical mechanics. My point is that there is a progression of techniques and knowledge moving from science to science. Physics (well all sciences) use mathematics as a tool, new tools are developed by mathematicians and these (usually slowly) find a use in science. Physics studies fundamental (arguably simple) situations and knowledge/methods of/for these move into sciences that study more complex situations, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology and these all feed in to each other. That's science! 

What people often don't think about is that the feedback for these fields takes different amounts of time. Physics may often be the first science to utilise new mathematics (along with computer science) but that doesn't happen quickly. Pure maths is often said to be a hundred years ahead of application, for theoretical physics there can also be a reasonable gap. Experiments take time to build and after validation of methods other fields take time to accept and utilise techniques developed in theory.

Failure is a key part of science
When theory gets it wrong, that's part of science and its not a bad thing. In fact getting it wrong is REALLY important. Theory is crucial because it provides research with a direction and despite some people opinions... theory is not plucked out of the air, not good theory anyway. Good theory is focused on trying to solve problems where we are at now and with minimal new assumptions, or at least making those assumptions testable. Theory can also be about testing the water with new tools that are still in development.

(Image Credit: OrthoCuban)

Particle phenomenology is about predicting new particles to solve current problems in particle physics, like dark matter candidates for example. These are testable and candidate particles are based on knowledge of current particle physics and therefore the best idea of what could exist that hasn't been found yet. Often these models are phased out as experiments explore the energy scales and processes which should feature these particles. In the current climate, this often results in theorists having to adjust their predictions and that's ok!

Often the problem comes from (string theory cough cough) theorists extending their predictions to far or making assumptions/jumps that are simply too big. In fairness this has often led to serious progress in mathematics but often criticism from the scientific community. Some of these culprit areas have since reigned things in, but over the last forty years some ridiculous statements have been made along the lines of theory not needing to be testable. Theory is not a one way street there are lots of directions theorists take and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. But just because their predictions aren't fore-filled doesn't necessarily mean they're doing a bad job, sometimes it turns out to be really useful!

Theory leads to new technology
Most modern electronics can be traced back to quantum electrodynamics, a theory that started development in the 1920s. So it's not unreasonable to argue that modern technologies like I don't know... the internet, personal computers, satellite navigation, I could go on, would simply be impossible if it wasn't for the endeavour of the theorists who laid the ground work for QED. GPS wouldn't work without relativity either, you might know that from A-level! All stages of science are crucial to the development of technologies that benefit human kind. Theoretical physics works quietly in the background, laying the foundations often decades before tangible effects are seen. But that doesn't mean theorists are any less important!


So if you're feeling a bit insecure about studying/pursuing theory because of the mentioned pressures, have a real think about where those opinions come from and whether they actually make sense!

Can you have a social life whilst studying physics?

This might seem like a more light hearted topic in comparison to my other articles but its a serious subject worth consideration no matter what stage of studies you're at. Whether you're just starting or in a final year, so called 'work-life balance' is important. I'll confess that I hate the term 'work-life' because it implies that work is bad and I hope that most university students enjoy their studies. But academic study is hard/stressful and engaging in social activities and past-times is not only fun and enjoyable but also stress relieving!

How do you find a right balance for you? How do you deal with the pressures from either side? Hopefully I can provide some answers.

Disclaimer: Inevitably my own approach to this has an effect on how I answer these questions, nevertheless I'll try to answer as objectively as I can. But you should probably know I'm not a very social person (surprise surprise) and whilst I tend to be reasonably flexible with my work schedule in my last academic year I almost always handed in problem sets a good few days before deadlines. Not everyone does it that way and with good reason, different things work for different people.

Can I really afford to spend time on things outside of physics?

Yes of course you can! There is often a perception that most successful physicists spent all their time doing nothing but study, to my knowledge that is certainly not the case (though they probably spent a lot of time on physics).

I'm not going to reel off all the research that thousands of articles have talked about regarding how down-time and certain types of activities can really boost your productivity. Instead I'll give some examples of some of the things successful students in my cohort did on a regular basis outside of physics:

• A number of them regularly went swimming multiple times a week with the college club. This was particularly beneficial for them as they had a structured way to socialise outside of lectures, I noticed it strengthened their friendships and it made them happy! Most people participated in some kind of sport, some of them played a role in running sports clubs.
• They took part in physics society social events, including many of the top of the class students. Events included pub crawls and bowling nights. This gave people a chance to let off some steam and converse about non-physics stuff, this usually had a good impact on people provided they didn't get absolutely plastered.
• I myself and I think a few others managed to spend a significant amount of time a week practising an instrument, I actually managed to be an instrumental teacher (part-time) for about 2 years over the course of my degree. I found this to be a very good relaxation tool whilst still feeling like I was progressing at something, I imagine the results would be similar for any more technical activity like (sorry to be stereotypical) playing chess or something more craft based if you can do that in your uni accommodation.
• Plenty of people were members of societies, I know at least one person wrote a number of physics articles for the university magazine for example. So its certainly not impossible to have pretty serious commitments outside of your studies.

Not only can you spend time away from physics but my experience (and research) points towards it being very important. I think the benefits of exercise cannot be ignored but if you don't want to go to the gym I really do sympathise with you, I hate gyms. But if you can find a sports class with a comfortable environment or even if you just do a bit of exercise in the privacy of your own accommodation I think you'll reap the benefits.

Humans are also fundamentally social beings, this is something that stereotypically students of sciences grapple with more than others I think, particularly physicists. The fact is that social interaction is crucial to your health, both physical and mental, that is under no doubt whatsoever. Keeping yourself healthy maximises your productivity and effectiveness when working. You'll find that if you work whilst in a bad mental state you are likely to perpetuate it, as you're unlikely to make much progress for the amount of effort you'll feel like you're putting in. 

There has been a lot in the news recently about student mental health and the statistics regarding suicide rates in the student population. It is more apparent than ever that we need to look after our minds whilst we undertake this tough but (hopefully) rewarding journey. Social interaction is the cornerstone of this and taking part in more organised events as well as spending time casually with friends is very important for any student.

On a less serious note, I think its important not to let study suppress your other hobbies/interests. Keep doing the sports you've been pursuing, same goes for any hobbies like instruments, crafts etc. I did reasonably well in my degree and I still managed to practise guitar and listen to music, play Skyrim, watch films/TV and spend a good amount of time cooking!

So now I've convinced you spending time away from physics is good, I now have to reign it in and convince you that you must be careful how much time you spend away from it...

I want to be a physicist but I still want to 'live'

My first answer to that question is: if you want to be a physicist you should live physics. But that's kind of a cheap answer so for those unsatisfied let me elaborate. Having spent three years doing my degree I've seen people change from having dreams of working in physics to not really caring so much. And there's nothing wrong with that, but sometimes the reason for that change was valid, other times it wasn't. If after studying the subject for such a long time you become dis-interested fair enough, but for some it was a case of their grades dropped because they didn't dedicate enough time to their studies and they saw that as them not 'being right for physics'.

Now I'm not judging people with drops in grades, some people get them for legitimate reasons (I've been there). But I'd be lying if I didn't say that some people get in that situation because ultimately they didn't put the time in. There's no 'I'm just not that smart' card you can pull here in my opinion, if you want the grade you have to put the time in. That amount of time is different for different people, I know for me that's usually longer than others! 

The fact is you get one shot at your degree, sure there's opportunities to retake a year etc. but that can cause serious problems with regards to academic record and whilst again this can happen for very legitimate reasons it is best avoided. Here's a couple of examples of ways I've seen people distracted from their studies to their detriment:

• Going out too much: You knew it was coming, it applies a lot of students. The fact is spending multiple hours in the late-evening/early-morning drinking several times a week isn't going to do your studies any good. Going out once our twice a week seemed not to cause people too much trouble but I tended to notice that when people did three or more heavy nights in the week the would have serious problems getting multiple problem sets in on time. What I can't escape is that the top of the class students went out once a week at most. I'd attribute a lot of my successes in my degree to the fact that I never go out drinking! But all in moderation, its about taking a serious look at whether your studies are being impacted by the amount you are going out (sometimes people find this difficult to assess though...)
• Devoting too much time to sports: I saw this happen to at least a couple of people. This was due to either being part of running a club or being involved in competitive matches. The key thing in both situations is to ensure that when you get into it there needs to be an escape route you can take if its impacting your studies. You MUST put your degree first. If you can't do that, that might suggest something about how much interest you actually have in the subject. It's fine if your passion for the subject is dead and gone but at least be ready to put some damage control in place so you can still come out with a degree.
• Procrastination: Whilst I've never experienced the first two I think this one can affect all of us. This often goes in line with your mental health, many of us when feeling down will occupy ourselves with unproductive and non-beneficial tasks. Now a bit of procrastination (a bit) has shown to be good, but it's important to keep it in check. Some use schedules to tackle this, that doesn't work for me so I simply monitor what I'm doing and whether I'm on track for meeting deadlines and getting the best marks I can.

So how do you achieve a balance? We here's my take on it.

Finding a 'balance'

Whilst I'll discuss my approach I think in the interests of objectivity its only fair that I'll give a counterexample. One of the top students in my year almost always did their problem sheets the night before they were due, they also did a ridiculous number of activities outside their studies. Whilst I'm pretty convinced they were a polymath it does show that everyone has their methods. Some people work incredibly well under pressure and enjoy having to manage multiple aspects of their life on an hourly basis. At the other end are more straight arrow types, they often still have hobbies but do work significantly in advance and have rigorous structure to their time. I'm somewhere in the middle...

I've already spoken about problem sets and not leaving them till a day or so before the deadline. But I also understand sometimes this is unavoidable, sometimes you have to do a set the night before its due in. My thought is that if you're facing this situation on a weekly basis you either aren't structuring your time correctly or you aren't spending enough time studying/working. Grades are a different matter, for some people where they are at now means that they need five hours on a sheet to get a 2:2, for others they only need an hour to get a 1st. If you're in the former position this can be very disheartening if you hear how the latter is doing. But if that's where you're at you have to make a choice, is that grade worth your five hours? This is perhaps worth an entirely new article, I'll probably write one about it soon.

I think your own happiness is ultimately the best measure. Because the fact is not everyone wants to put in the work they need to in order to graduate with a 1st, that's fine! But you don't want to be in the position where you graduate with something less than you expected/wanted. The best way to keep track of this is to pay attention to your problem set grades, they are highly indicative of how you are progressing and you should feel an emotional impact from them. I'm not saying if you get a 2:2 when you're after a 2:1 you should feel bad but that you should care that its not what you wanted and do something about it.

That could mean implementing a tighter schedule, going out less etc. Likewise if you consistently get what you want and you feel like you could still get it with some more free time injected into your life, give it a try! There are no set rules but the key is to be willing to change your lifestyle to fit what you want in the hope that it might make you a bit happier.

External pressures that push you to work

Lecturers in physics can often be very demanding (very very very demanding). They can expect you to put in a lot of extra work, completing exercises for the reader etc. There is also little sympathy for your commitments outside of your studies, you can't ask for a coursework extension because you had a sports match on during the weekend. To some this seems harsh but I'm afraid I'm with the lecturers on this, just be aware of it and plan accordingly.

Problem sets are perhaps where things get a bit more hazy. They can vary in difficulty drastically and in my experience lecturers can be very poor at structuring their coursework. We all have our limits, if for you four hours on a sheet is max then work to that. But don't expect lecturers to sympathise with you as students regarding the length of problem sets. Sometimes changes are made but in my experience its often a 50:50 chance at best. Having a personal limit on your work time is a good resolve to have when facing such pressures.

You also might find that your fellow students unintentionally push you to get things done. If you chat with a straight arrow type you might find yourself pressured to complete coursework ahead of your own personal schedule. For some people this might be the push they need, but if your system works for you and is getting you the marks you want its important to remember that everyone does things differently.

External pressures that push you away from work

First lets note that some of these pressures are justified, health (and that of those close to you), family matters etc. If you are experiencing such difficulties please talk to your department and get your deadlines moved and such.

The more... unjustifiable pressures mostly come from your fellow students. Being convinced to go out for drinks again and similar situations are often continuous social pressures that students are under. A willingness to say no is often not common amongst the general student population, I would encourage you to develop such a willingness. 

I think this is especially important if you have friends studying degrees with a different workload or deadline structure. Some other courses require fewer hours of work per week or they have an essay based coursework system, this can offer a different level of flexibility unlike physics where you have to manage a number of weekly deadlines. It's important that your friends recognise the pressures you are under. 

If I'm being completely honest and bias, science students tend not to have the same amount of free time as some other degrees, sorry BAs if that offends you its just what I've seen. Physics in particular is seen as a pretty 'hardcore' subject, if you're studying it you probably know that. Don't forget it and understand what that means for your social life in comparison to students of other subjects.

Ways not to deal with the pressure

Using drugs (including legal ones like alcohol and 'legal' study drugs) to prop yourself up is a really, really bad idea. Whether it be aiming for stress relief, to keep you awake so you can study/party all night, or anything else really, I've never seen someone who used drugs at uni end up in a good position. Not to mention that if you get found to be storing/using on university property you are at serious risk of being expelled from your university. If you feel that you are reliant on any substance please seek help with the relevant services at your university.

Running away from issues like falling grades is a really bad idea as well. Get in touch with your tutor or relevant members of staff and get help. Also, talk with your friends! I know I'm always willing to help out a friend with managing work, you should do the same. That said, never give someone a copy of your coursework, its ok to talk about problems but don't simply hand over a copy. It doesn't help people in the long run. Likewise don't ask someone for a copy of their work, it puts that person in a very difficult position.

A lot of opinions/information for you there, with any luck that gives you a clearer idea of how to achieve the fabled 'work-life balance'. Everyone does it differently but it's crucial that you find it as soon as possible!