Teoretisk fysiks kursutväderingar


Resultat av: Relativity Theory, 5A1384, vt2007

Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2007-03-09 - 2007-03-26
Antal svar: 24
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 96%
Kontaktperson: Edwin Langmann

General opinion about the course

Very good8 33%
Good13 54%
Average2 8%
Bad0 0%
Very bad1 4%

- I belive the course could be a little bit longer (Very good)
- For a first class, very good! (Very good)
- Very good to have a practical approach to the subject, as opposed to the theoretical approach done previously. (Very good)
- I think it was a great course. I think Edwin is a very inspiring teacher. I should say that it was very difficult however, but thats the nature of physics I guess. Perhaps the amount of work corespond to more than 5p. (Very good)
- One of the best and most fun courses I?ve taken. After completing the course I?m not an expert on relativity but at least I have a good understanding of the basic ideas and can do some calculations. Since I think this was the main goal of the course I give it a "very good" grade! (Very good)
- Interesting material most often presented in a good way (Good)
- Maybe the relation between GR and SR should be a bit readjusted the next time. I had the feeling that GR was pressed into the last week. On the other hand I have no idea to make it better as there was simply no more time than that. (Good)
- very encouraged and motivated teachers much good reading material mathematical niveau a little bit too low a little bit more mathematical background would be nice (Good)
- Bra uppl?gg! Kul att kursen blivit mer "fysikalisk" (dvs, lite mindre matematisk). (Good)
- If you haven't studied realativity before (not counting the breif section included in the course "Modern Fysik") there's a lot of new stuff to absorb (space-time diagrams, four-velocity, some parts of the tensor calculus not to mention manifolds, curvature etc...). A little more than two months is just not enough time for this stuff to sink in and having time to do enough exercises. The course should in my opnion stretch over the whole term (at least). (Average)
- Organize exercise sessions, motivate thing on physical grounds. (Very bad)

Opinion about the lectures

Very good4 17%
Good17 73%
Average0 0%
Bad1 4%
Very bad1 4%

- I really enjoyed the lectures (Very good)
- But sometimes a bit hard to see "where we were heading", some lectures felt a bit confused (Good)
- More physical approach would be appriciated. (Good)
- The course is very interesting! (Good)
- They were quite comfortable to follow. (Good)
- I think the level of "math" versus "physics" in the lectures was good. Edwin did a nice job on teaching the essential math-tools needed to solve the physical problems in the course. (Good)
- as already mentioned: motivated teachers But I would really appreciate more structure of the notes on the board. I would really be able to get much more out of the lectures. (Good)
- Ibland lite h?g niv?, men bra! (Good)
- I probably have wished to have lectures a litle bit more strutured, as if it was a long story. I sometimes lost the track when it was about disconnected calculation .. (Good)
- I'll give an example. In the beginning, the concept of a field was not clarified. One could have taken a set of coupled masses m, taken the limit m-->dm and N -> oo. (Very bad)

Opinion about the exercises

Very good5 20%
Good9 37%
Average6 25%
Bad1 4%
Very bad1 4%
I did not participate2 8%

- Pedram is very good, and discribes every problem at the right level of understanding. (Very good)
- Bra ?vningar! Hade varit bra att hinna med lite fler r?kneexempel (tal i boken). (Very good)
- Too much time spent on each excersise sometimes, sometimes a unstructured (Good)
- Could benefit from a little more structure. It is good to have a few explanations on the side, but it could tend to become somewhat chaotic. Planning such comments ahead (as far as possible) and trying to focus a bit more on problem-solving would make the exercises great. (Good)
- Go to se actual calculations (Good)
- may be we should have done more exercices about the einstein equation, to understand it better. (Good)
- Very nice job done by pedram! I especially liked the handed out sheets on calculating new metrics, christoffel symbols and so on. (Good)
- same as for lectures + perhaps it would be possible to anounnce in advance which exercises are shown in the exercises (Good)
- To do some more exercices at the end, they are the most interesting ones. (Good)
- I think you should consider just having exercise-classes instead! (Average)
- At first they were a bit too much like lectures, but to the end they were quite practical and very helpful. (Average)
- I don't agree with the philosophy of exercices. I don't know if it is "standart" in KTH, but in my uni, we use to do exercice by ourselves, and the assistant can help us and give us some tricks iff we get stuck. Those exercices were like extra lectures, and the compendium was full of (good) solved exercice. We don't need more! Let us work alone! (Bad)
- Basic problems picked out from various books. (Very bad)
- Excercises is not my thing (I did not participate)

My prerequisites

More than enough2 8%
Enough18 75%
Not enough4 16%

- But think it would have been easier if i had known some differentila geometry... (Enough)
- No problem. (Enough)
- Generally enough. (Enough)
- Nice to finally use tensor calculus and variational calculus for real. (Enough)
- Differential calculation, but it's being remerbered quite easily with practise. (Enough)
- As mentioned above the new mathematical tools takes a lot of time to get used to. (Not enough)
- Nothing could have prepared me for this course. (Not enough)

How difficult did you find the course?

Very difficult4 16%
Difficult15 62%
Average5 20%
Easy0 0%
Very easy0 0%

- The tensornotation prerequisites are not good. You should have more introduction to this notation (Very difficult)
- Difficult subject (Difficult)
- Kinda difficult, of course. (Difficult)
- Actually somewhere between "Difficult" and "Average". It should be said that I read the first half of the course last year. (Difficult)
- I learnt a lot of new things, like tensors! It's not easy but explaining that many times, in the lectures and in the exercices as you did, we can get it! (Difficult)
- Subject matter ok, maybe it would've been easier for the lecturer to give the course in Swedish. (Average)

How much work did the course take compared to other courses?

Much more6 25%
Somewhat more15 62%
Average2 8%
Somewhat less1 4%
Much less0 0%

- Consider : 4-5 courses at once during these 2 months, and I only had time for Rel.Th. pretty much =). Even so I messed up the exam =(. (Much more)
- But only because I wanted to spend more time with it! (Much more)
- There is a huge gap in the amount of labour courses on KTH demand. Typically the chapest points are the courses more oriented towards enginering, like H?LF, REGLER etc. I think I used 4 times as much time with this one compared to H?LF wich is 6p. All students knows this. (Much more)
- And would have spent even more if i had time... (Somewhat more)
- Men frivilligt (Somewhat more)
- During lectures, no physical motivation was given. (Somewhat less)

Comments and suggestions on how to improve the course

- Overall the exam felt a bit too long. What in older exams would have been perhaps u1 & u2 was made u1a & u1b here, or at least I felt so.
- See comments above.
- Change the exercices style and do not sell anymore this compendium!! The exercices in it where good, but theory is somehow shifted with the oral course. And it is way too succint. But 100 SEK for not even 50 A4 pages..that's not fair.
- Split it up to two periods!
- Mer fokus borde l?ggas p? den senare delen av kursen (Diff. Geometri och GR) som ?r betydligt sv?rare ?n SR.
- Get an assistant, organize proper exercise sessions, have real exams or midterms, do not give away credits like candy like it seems to be in Sweden
- A better description of the course parts and content would have helped to plan the studies in a more efficiant way, the content was a bit unclear
- Just one thing about the homework and their correction; it could be good to have all the hmework in advance and their correction too. For the first midterm, I didn't do the last set because it was added just the day before the test and I didn't notice it.
- Maybe the SR-part should be given a little bit less time. I found that the hardest part of the course was that about diff.geom and GR and would have liked more time for that. But on the other hand i think it?s crucial to know SR by heart before starting with GR.
- more structure, a little bit more mathematics

How did you find the midterm exams

Valuable14 58%
Average4 16%
Not so valuable2 8%
I did not do it4 16%

- Motivates you to study and practice making the essential calculations (Valuable)
- Very good idea, fair level. (Even if the second test was a bit to big within one hour) (Valuable)
- What the course is about. Not strange question, that was good. (Valuable)
- I only did the first one. It was very easy. Exams are however a god way to make students work. So I should say the concept is one of the best ways to make we solve problems and learn something. (Valuable)
- I think it's a very good point to have bonus during the period, and it's a very good preparation! (Valuable)
- The midterm exams was a good motivation for studying during the course. The extra point earned for the exam was nice to have. :) (Valuable)
- good idea! (Valuable)
- Andra Ks:en var inneh?ll f?r mycket r?kning f?r att man skulle hinna svara p? alla uppgifter under en timme. (Average)
- Unfortunately they gave a bit wrong expectations for the final exam since they were following the homework very closely. (Average)
- Givetvis alldeles f?r lite tid p? nummer 2 (Average)
- Too easy compared to the final exam. Or the final exam was to difficult compared to the midtermtests. (Not so valuable)
- homework exercises are better (Not so valuable)
- Due to other courses I had pretty much no time to study for these. (I did not do it)
- There weren't any. (I did not do it)

The suggested course literature was (please also write comments)


Very good3 12%
Good13 54%
Average6 25%
Bad2 8%

Fördelat på olika grupper:

course book: (16 st)

Very good3 18%
Good10 62%
Average2 12%
Bad1 6%

- I very much enjoyed reading Schultz book, but, in some cases it was a bit too general compared to the compendium and old exams. This was slightly confusing at times. It was sometimes difficult to figure out which parts to focus on. (Very good)
- Kursboken var bra, den f?rklarade allting tydligt utan att bli f?r tjock. Kompendiet var mer sv?rtillg?ngligt och avancerat. (Very good)
- the book by schutz and the compendium by dunsby were really good, but the green compendium feelt just a bit confusing (Very good)
- I relied mostly on Schultz. I think the tensors part is very good. In general, the arguments are solid and understanble. I did however notice a very different aproach to solving many problems then what is presented in the solutions of the exams. Schulz uses a less theoretical line of arguments, especially in chap 11. Personally I find the kind of reasoning presented in the solutions to old exams much more efficient. (Good)
- the book is very good, we can understand easily what it says! But I didn't find a lot a theory about relativistic mechanics, generalization of newton's law,... (Good)
- The course book was quite nice, but unfortunately not available at K?rbokhandeln. Schutz has a nice but sometimes to extensive writing style. The exercises in the book were less helpful as there were only short solutions or no solutions at all. The compendium was the opposite: less useful text section, but very nice exercises with good solutions. It emphasizes particle physics a bit too much maybe. (Good)
- I liked the "geometric" presentation of the SR-part. I also enjoyed reading the chapter on cosmology. Over all the book was good. (Good)
- nearly too much, but good quality (Good)
- The book is ok, I would have liked some more illustraitions/pictures and some of the motivations/explanations are rather poor. (Average)
- Course book was not available on Swedish estores and then the lecturer fussed about copyrights... (Bad)

compendium: (8 st)

Very good0 0%
Good3 37%
Average4 50%
Bad1 12%

- Overral very good, but sometimes you had to check other books to fully grasp everything. (Good)
- The compendium contained more particle scattering and differential geometry than pedagogical examples and physical understanding (Good)
- Very useful when the course touchs to the end, almost everything is inside. (Good)
- Way too little text, should have bought the book... (Average)
- The compendium is hard to understand but is good to know what you have to learn during the course (Average)
- Very compressed material, and not very easy to know if it described method and calculations that were supposed to be known or a summary of higher-level calculations. A good summary though. (Average)
- Compendium : very bad (not actual, too expensive for what it is) Schult'z book : very very good. (Bad)

How difficult did you find the exam

Too difficult (please write comments why)3 12%
Difficult14 58%
Average5 20%
Easy0 0%
Too easy2 8%

- The questions is hard to understand what to do (Too difficult (please write comments why))
- The focus of the excercises was definitely not where the focus of the lecture was. To many excercises of one kind, dealing with the same kind of problem. A more broader selection would be good. In comparison to the midterm-exam and the test-exam, the final exam was definitely too difficult! (Too difficult (please write comments why))
- One of the hardest exams i've had, but then again felt the subject wasn't very easy either which makes the exam hard by definition... (Difficult)
- "Being prepared enough" got a new meaning with this course. The exam felt somewhat like a race about "who can do Euler-Lagrange the fastest!?". (Difficult)
- It was difficult, but well balanced between the different parts of the course. The question sheet was somehow not that clear (we were suppose to find what to answer to in the hint. Is it normal??). (Difficult)
- A bit hard to prepare for... The example exam wasnt that helpful in my opinion... (Difficult)
- Probably at a reasonable level, though. (Difficult)
- Lite f?r mycket sv?ra och jobbiga utr?kningar (tex. upg 4). Att sitta och ber?kna j?ttem?nga (fast enkla) derivator k?nns inte s?rskillt meningsfullt. (Difficult)
- hard to know what to expect when there are no proper old exams available (Difficult)
- I think it was a step harder than what we did in the midterms and the exercices, but with the bonus points and the old exams to work, I understnad that you ask more. (Difficult)
- There was much more particle physics and electrodynamics as I would have ever expected after the homework, the classes and the midterm exams. (Difficult)
- The exam was a good representation of the material included in the course. (Difficult)
- dock r?ttade ni kanske lite f?r sn?llt? (Average)
- It would be nice if someone of the teachers is all the time in the room so that one can ask questions about the formulation of the problems (Average)
- I would have loved to have a more complete "remembering list", or a half an A4 I could I've wrote to fill in the few missing formula (for the 1st exercise for example). (Average)
- Because I didn't sit the exam! (Too easy)
- I dropped the course and took the one at my home university. (Too easy)

Kursutvärderingssystem från

[Theoretical physics home page] [KTH home page]   webmaster