Teoretisk fysiks kursutväderingar


Resultat av: Relativistic Quantum Physics, SI2390, vt 2014

Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2014-03-21 - 2014-04-08
Antal svar: 22
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 88%
Kontaktperson: Tommy Ohlsson

What is your overall impression of the course?

22 svarande

Very positive6 27%
Quite postive12 54%
Neutral - no opinion3 13%
Quite negative1 4%
Very negative0 0%

- Good teacher and interesting handin assignments. The course is abit short. (Quite postive)
- It is a very essential course which covers many important topics. You really learn a lot during the course if you really invest your time in it. However, one period (half a semester) is far too short a period to absorb all the material taught in this course. A full semester would be much more suitable. (Quite postive)
- Some more basic concepts are requred, I think. And the course should definitely run over two periods, to give more time for reflection on the material. (Neutral - no opinion)

How would you rate the difficulty of the course?

22 svarande

Very difficult7 31%
Quite difficult15 68%
Average0 0%
Easy0 0%
Very easy0 0%

- The difficulty was a bit high due to the large amount of material that was, in some cases, treated a bit briefly. (Very difficult)
- It is the most difficult course I have taken. The material is really advanced and the mathematics can be very involved. My biggest problem with a course like this is that it is really hard to grasp what it is your a calculating and what everything means. It easily just becomes a matter of rearranging symbols on a paper. That said, I managed to calculate all homework problems and kind of grasp the material (almost). (Very difficult)
- The subject of the course is way to complex and vast to be covered in ony one period. I feel like I never fully got the chance to understand the course material. (Very difficult)
- It was difficult but fun course. (Very difficult)
- Alot of work was required to complete the assignments, however most information needed was readily available in the book or on the internet. (Quite difficult)
- Quite easy to pass but very difficult to get a high grade. Maybe make it harder to pass in order to get a smother difficulty curve. (Quite difficult)
- It is difficult and needs a lot of work to understand. The beginning is hard because we don't know what is the aim of every definitions but at the end it become clear. (Quite difficult)

Has there been much overlap with other courses?

22 svarande

Far too much overlap0 0%
Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again7 31%
Mostly unnecessary overlap1 4%
No overlap14 63%

- Mostly diiferent courses giving different views on the same topics. We investigated the K-G equation, while another course said: "solving the K-G equation gives". (Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again)
- All new. (No overlap)
- No overlap, but rather I would have benefitted from a course in classical mechanics (Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulation). (No overlap)
- No overlap, but I did not take the Classical Theoretical Physics course prior to this one. (No overlap)

How were the homework problems?

22 svarande

Very difficult6 27%
Difficult14 63%
Average2 9%
Easy0 0%
Very easy0 0%

- A broad range on the scale, some very hard and other easier which is a good thing! (Very difficult)
- They were difficult and took a lot of time but important to understand the course and to search for additional information by ourselves. (Very difficult)
- I think that it is a shame that there was no correction session where the correct solutions were presented. The homework problems are really hard to solve and it would have been interesting to see the full solutions. I don't think that the short comments that we were handed back were enough to understand how to fully solve the problem and improve for the next set of homework problems. (Very difficult)
- They varied quite a bit in difficulty. Discussing ideas with classmates helped a lot. Perhaps too difficult if one didn't have anyone to speak with. (Very difficult)
- Alot of reading and time was required, the lectures did a good job of preparing us for them however. (Difficult)
- either easy or notoriously difficult. (Difficult)
- Some problems were very difficult, while most problem were average to easy. (Difficult)
- Overall, they were difficult-very difficult. The first set contained some easier and some harder problems, quite a good mixture. The second set was somewhat easier. The last one also had a couple of easier question, but one or two of them really was quite beyond what was reasonable to expect from students taking this course. But, as I've said, all homework sets were possible to solve and they were a good way of learning the material. (Difficult)

How was the oral examination?

22 svarande

Very difficult0 0%
Difficult6 27%
Average10 45%
Easy6 27%
Very easy0 0%

- I liked it, though! (Difficult)
- I am not fond of oral examination as it rewards memorization rather than understanding of the subject. (Difficult)
- The only problem I see is that everything else was complicated quaestions, with an open book. So while the examinations complemented each other, they didn't help each other. (Difficult)
- I failed it, but I know if I had looked through my lecture notes or the book once more I'd have passed without too much difficulty. (Average)
- It is a fair examination about the global understanding of the course. (Average)
- Since I had never had an oral examination before, I was quite nervous at the prospect of it. I studied quite a lot before the examination and really tried to grasp the material, going through the literature page by page and summarizing it. This turned out to be a good way of learning the material, in fact, it was better than having a written examination. The oral examination was not very difficult at all and professor Tommy Ohlsson was very kind and friendly during the examination. This made you feel at ease. (Easy)
- It would be nice to get better information about the oral exam and what is needed to pass it. Maybe some clearer study guide lines. (Easy)

What is your opinion about the "kurs-PM" and the administration of the course?

22 svarande

Very good8 36%
Good11 50%
Average3 13%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- As good as I'd expect from theophys (i.e good and without hassle). (Good)
- It would be good to specify the reading instructions a bit. Instead of having chapter three for two lectures it would be better to specify what parts of the chapter that are dealt with. (Good)

What is your opinion about the course literature?

22 svarande

Very good6 27%
Good9 40%
Average5 22%
Poor2 9%
Very poor0 0%

- The content was presented in a very good way. Personally i found the last part of the book quite difficult to understand. Though, in retrospect i (Very good)
- Bit overwhelming sometimes, regarding amount of content per page. (Very good)
- I also think the course would benefit from being extended on two periods, this way we might demonstrate some results before using it more often. One of the main theoritical subject that still remains unclear to me after this course is the SU(n) groups and how they relate to each interaction theory. (Very good)
- I looked abit at Peskin and Schroders book, they seem to cover the same areas. (Good)
- Some part were difficult to understand with the knowledge available from earlier courses. (Good)
- Some subjects such as lie theory or certain fields, mostly those related to em-phenomena are treated too briefly or without proper motivation for their introduction and conceptual or practical utility. (Average)
- The book by Tommy Ohlsson is good for this course since it is written by the examiner and thus tailord material-wise spcifically for this course. However, the book is quite dense and a lot of material is covered in very few pages. Furthermore, there are no worked examples in the book, which would have been very useful. The problems scattered throughout the book and at the end of each chaptes lacks solutions and even answers, which almost render them useless. I had to consult other sources and literature, especially Peskin and Schroeder for the latter part of the course and Greiner for the first part. They provided more examples and often more detailed explanations of the concepts. However, in retrospect, after having read the book and gone through the material, Tommy's book is a very good review book, to come back to later. (Poor)
- It is hard to use only the course book as literature since it skips so many important parts. I feel like the book is only a very brief summary of other books and that might be good for a recap on the subject but not to learn it from the beginning. I mostly used other books, e.g Peskin and Schroeder (Poor)

How were the lectures?

22 svarande

Very good10 45%
Good9 40%
Average3 13%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- I would have appreciated more explaining text on the black board during some lectures, that would have made it easier to understand the lecture notes afterword. (Very good)
- Tommy is a very good teacher. (Very good)
- I have missed quite a few lectures though. But what i saw was positive! (Very good)
- The frequent overtime was not good, however. (Very good)
- The explanations were very clear (Very good)
- The strongest part of the course, but the classroom was awful! But the lectures were well structured and complemented the book nicely. FE21 was not a good classroom. (Very good)
- The lectures were good. Tommy follows the book very well and he does try to explain the more difficult concepts thoroughly during the lectures. I would have benefitted from the more if I had read the corresponding chapter prior to each lecture (which was hard to manage with the tight schedule). (Good)
- Some of the lectures were too calculation intensive which did not leave time for discussions and/or getting the intuitive picture. (Good)

Please, enter any further comments on the course below.

- I think this course should be given over two periods. We have no time to practice enough and to go deaply in the subject. Moreover, I think we should get more exercices just to practice and that don't count. This way we could really build our knowledge around practical work and not juste know superficially what quantum field theory is. (But actually I think every course should be given over two periods,, Nobody has time to print informations in his brain in 7 weeks.)
- Ii you don't have knowledge about some of the material in the course in advance I think it covers more than 7.5 hp and would be better if one would have more lectures.
- I feel the course is abit too short. It should have maybe 3 more lectures and 2 or 3 extra weeks without more content to give more time to let the new topics sink in.
- To have a correction of the homework problems would be great (a pdf would be enough if there is not enough time in the course PM)
- It would be nice to have the results for earlier years course evaluation on the course web page.
- Interesting, I think it would have been better with more time to get deeper into the subject.
- It was an amazing course, and I am glad I had the opportunity to include it in my study plan.
- This course should be extended over two periods in order for the students to get a better grasp of the subject.
- I am glad I took it, it will be useful. But it was a hard course.
- Towards the end, the course turned quite heavy and difficult to catch up with, since many new and important stuffs were introduced at the end. However, those topics are apparently covered in the Field Theory Course, so no problem.
- It would be more useful to cover less topics so that more time can be allocated to studying the core concepts in depth. In my opinion, the part about renormalization could have been skipped in favour of discussions about physical aspects of Yang-Mills theory etc.

What do you like this way of making a course evaluation?

22 svarande

Very positive5 22%
Positive10 45%
Neutral7 31%
Negative0 0%
Very negative0 0%

- Quick, easy. Definitely better than a sheet given at the lectures. (Positive)
- I think in the end we lack a lot of practice. It is really nice and non stressfull way to examinate our level, but I think exercices every week (that don't count) and access to corrected exercices after one week could make us could go way furtherer and in the end we would be able to do a written exam. (Neutral)

Kursutvärderingssystem från

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