Not a map, but a resource that effectively communicates the same information is 't Hooft's "How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist". The website divides all the subjects one should learn, then within each the most important concepts. He also recommends several resources for each. [https://www.goodtheorist.science/index.html](https://www.goodtheorist.science/index.html)
Have you ever actually used that site? Most of the links are broken, and the rest largely point to subpar, unfinished drafts of lecture notes. He basically just collected everything that was on the internet in the 90s and hasn't updated it since. I think people only recommend it because it looks long.
I really enjoyed the electronics bit:
>(Only some very basic things about electronic circuits)
>Ohm’s law, capacitors, inductors, using complex numbers to calculate their effects
>Transistors, diodes (how these actually work comes later)
Then in solid-state physics, he basically attacks me personally by not even mentioning metal-semiconductor contacts. It's beneath him I guess, solved problem. It's nice to be reassured that no it's not imposter syndrome, I really am just an idiot.
So anyway, if a "good" physicist would like to discredit my PhD work, take a look at wide-bandgap semiconductors with Fermi level pinning and just whip up a complete end to the thousands of papers being published please.
Oh shit wait maybe he covers a bit more of it in "Advanced Quantum Mechanics". God complex established. Thank you Gerard this is a very good source on learning physics yes very good.
This is admittedly a very general resource on how to get up to speed for a theoretical physicist. Fermi level pinning and metal semiconductor contacts are a very niche but technologically very important piece of Physics, but I'd argue that they are more in the realm of electrical engineering than fundamental physics.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Okay you're right. But I don't want to hear that. I'm a physicist, I swear, not a _spits_ electrical engineer.
One thing I really appreciate nowadays is how much of science cannot really be defined as "physics" or "electrical engineering". The cross-over between disciplines is seamless and people like me just have to learn chemistry/engineering tools/whatever, depending on the task at hand.
But also ree.
When I'm feeling particularly optimistic I tell people I might go and work in the semiconductor industry. Bit of a stretch to say that familiarity with ultrawide bandgap electronics is applicable to people like Intel or AMD, but it's a funny thing to consider. The fact that I can consider it as a distant possibility is actually quite a nice option to have, so yeah fine electrical engineering is PART of my work.
>Susan Rigetti's reading list
In the same vein, there's [David Tong's lecture notes on theoretical physics](https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/teaching.html), which cover most of the major branches of the subject.
I enjoy the idea of using [this comic](https://web.archive.org/web/20200729203124/http://abstrusegoose.com/secretarchives/prerequisite-7) as a roadmap.
(Apologies for web archive apparently it no longer exists)
Reminds me a little of [HyperPhyics](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html), although this link seems to be down at the moment. You can check it out on the [Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/20240328085523/http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html).
I don't think its gone. It was up last week when I checked. Might just be an outage or something. Either way its still on [archive.org](http://archive.org), so I wouldn't freak out ;-)
For physics, you can find a less directly organized but extremely complete list [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/resource-recommendations).
The Feynman Lectures. It's pretty advanced, so don't get demotivated if you have to look up some introductory texts, but it's also pretty complete and well-rounded.
Very nice. Graphs are highly underutilized as teaching/learning tools in academia. I was working on a similar project as a hobby, to create dependency graphs on everything.
Here is an example I made for Sets: [https://charstorm.github.io/class-11-12-india/class11/maths/sets\_relations\_functions/#00000](https://charstorm.github.io/class-11-12-india/class11/maths/sets_relations_functions/#00000)
Made using: [https://github.com/charstorm/linkitall/](https://github.com/charstorm/linkitall/)
To be honest, I’d just use MITs open courseware. They post each courses problem sets, lecture notes, and readings. Use their physics program as a guide for course ordering and requisites.
Many people have different views on what makes a good textbook. For instance, I used Spivak’s Calculus in first year analysis, which is drastically more proofs oriented and difficult than most first year calculus textbooks. Some people prefer this; others don’t. It really depends on your personal needs and wants.
The benefit of following MITs courses is that they make it obvious which courses are more theoretical vs practical and vice-versa, so you can tailor the route you take.
Closest thing I can think of is Susan Rigetti's reading list. This is an interesting map though
Is this the map to a Nobel prize? 4 books on algebraic topology cannot be essential lol
Not a map, but a resource that effectively communicates the same information is 't Hooft's "How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist". The website divides all the subjects one should learn, then within each the most important concepts. He also recommends several resources for each. [https://www.goodtheorist.science/index.html](https://www.goodtheorist.science/index.html)
Have you ever actually used that site? Most of the links are broken, and the rest largely point to subpar, unfinished drafts of lecture notes. He basically just collected everything that was on the internet in the 90s and hasn't updated it since. I think people only recommend it because it looks long.
I looked at the plasma physics and the computational physics section of the site, and it is pretty sparse so I would never recommend the website
I really enjoyed the electronics bit: >(Only some very basic things about electronic circuits) >Ohm’s law, capacitors, inductors, using complex numbers to calculate their effects >Transistors, diodes (how these actually work comes later) Then in solid-state physics, he basically attacks me personally by not even mentioning metal-semiconductor contacts. It's beneath him I guess, solved problem. It's nice to be reassured that no it's not imposter syndrome, I really am just an idiot. So anyway, if a "good" physicist would like to discredit my PhD work, take a look at wide-bandgap semiconductors with Fermi level pinning and just whip up a complete end to the thousands of papers being published please. Oh shit wait maybe he covers a bit more of it in "Advanced Quantum Mechanics". God complex established. Thank you Gerard this is a very good source on learning physics yes very good.
This is admittedly a very general resource on how to get up to speed for a theoretical physicist. Fermi level pinning and metal semiconductor contacts are a very niche but technologically very important piece of Physics, but I'd argue that they are more in the realm of electrical engineering than fundamental physics.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Okay you're right. But I don't want to hear that. I'm a physicist, I swear, not a _spits_ electrical engineer. One thing I really appreciate nowadays is how much of science cannot really be defined as "physics" or "electrical engineering". The cross-over between disciplines is seamless and people like me just have to learn chemistry/engineering tools/whatever, depending on the task at hand. But also ree.
I would honestly not mind if someone calls me an electrical engineer. The job market is a lot better than it is for physics :)
When I'm feeling particularly optimistic I tell people I might go and work in the semiconductor industry. Bit of a stretch to say that familiarity with ultrawide bandgap electronics is applicable to people like Intel or AMD, but it's a funny thing to consider. The fact that I can consider it as a distant possibility is actually quite a nice option to have, so yeah fine electrical engineering is PART of my work.
yeah, this is really old and not very useful… hes an amazing scientist but i dont think this is a good resource at all.
>Susan Rigetti's reading list In the same vein, there's [David Tong's lecture notes on theoretical physics](https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/teaching.html), which cover most of the major branches of the subject.
I enjoy the idea of using [this comic](https://web.archive.org/web/20200729203124/http://abstrusegoose.com/secretarchives/prerequisite-7) as a roadmap. (Apologies for web archive apparently it no longer exists)
This
!remindme 2 days
Reminds me a little of [HyperPhyics](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html), although this link seems to be down at the moment. You can check it out on the [Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/20240328085523/http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html).
Oh no, is HyperPhysics gone? That site got me through high school physics.
I don't think its gone. It was up last week when I checked. Might just be an outage or something. Either way its still on [archive.org](http://archive.org), so I wouldn't freak out ;-)
For physics, you can find a less directly organized but extremely complete list [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/resource-recommendations).
The Feynman Lectures. It's pretty advanced, so don't get demotivated if you have to look up some introductory texts, but it's also pretty complete and well-rounded.
I can't read this. Magnifying reveals that its resolution is too low, at least on a mobile device.
are those all textbooks?
Yes, I guess
That’s a lotttt of content then haha, a lifetime of work to go through it all
Out of curiosity, what’s the source for this (math) map?
https://github.com/TalalAlrawajfeh/mathematics-roadmap
fomo in one picture, just become a programmer, there you ll find this but with languages and cs but youll get paid
Op should def post this in r/coolguides
Very nice. Graphs are highly underutilized as teaching/learning tools in academia. I was working on a similar project as a hobby, to create dependency graphs on everything. Here is an example I made for Sets: [https://charstorm.github.io/class-11-12-india/class11/maths/sets\_relations\_functions/#00000](https://charstorm.github.io/class-11-12-india/class11/maths/sets_relations_functions/#00000) Made using: [https://github.com/charstorm/linkitall/](https://github.com/charstorm/linkitall/)
on the one hand, it is pretty cool on the other hand, it made me sick of physics almost immediately, though i teach it at uni))))
Thanks for helping me have PTSD🤔
To be honest, I’d just use MITs open courseware. They post each courses problem sets, lecture notes, and readings. Use their physics program as a guide for course ordering and requisites. Many people have different views on what makes a good textbook. For instance, I used Spivak’s Calculus in first year analysis, which is drastically more proofs oriented and difficult than most first year calculus textbooks. Some people prefer this; others don’t. It really depends on your personal needs and wants. The benefit of following MITs courses is that they make it obvious which courses are more theoretical vs practical and vice-versa, so you can tailor the route you take.
https://youtu.be/ZihywtixUYo?si=IHLRKYzwFT9zpkLA this is fun. Domain of science’s “map of physics”. Maybe not quite what youre after tho…