Resultat av: Theoretical Particle Physics, SI2400, vt 2014Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2014-05-14 - 2014-05-30
Antal svar: 14
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 87%
Kontaktperson: Tommy Ohlsson
What is your overall impression of the course?14 svarande
|Very positive||0|| 0%|
|Very negative||3|| 21%|
- Actually neither positive nor negative but leaning towards negative. (Negative)
- I am really disappointed. I expected that the course follow the "Relativistic Quantum Physics" course of Tommy Ohlsson and not at all. During 5 weeks, we just repeated what we had seen in that course and the experimental course of Jonas. Which left two weeks for new subjects... This was really disappointing.
It is impossible to ask a post-doc and a PhD student to give a course on such an advanced subjet. This subject and level REQUIRES an experimented Professor. PhD's and post-doc's can give bachelor courses. (Negative)
- Much overlap between this course and the recommended courses. (Negative)
- This course has been one of the worst courses I have taken at KTH. The main problem has been that the different part of the course has been really good on their own, but they have not fit well together and have not been coordinated well together. (Negative)
- If you have taken Relativistic Quantum Physics, this course gives nothing new. The lectures were quite bad, and the hand-in assignments contained little that had actually been brought up in the course. This made them very difficult, and hard to understand. (Very negative)
How would you rate the overall difficulty of the course?14 svarande
|Very high||2|| 14%|
|Very low||0|| 0%|
- The difficulty was high mainly because the things examined were not always connected to neither the course book or the teaching. (Very high)
- Difficult to estimate the "overall" difficulty. The course was really ok after Relativistic quantum physics, but some problems were too hard compared with the level of the seminars. (High)
- the homework problems are computationally very heavy... maybe even unnecessarily so (High)
- There is a big difference in the difficulty of the seminars and the homework problems. The level of difficulty of the homework does not at all correspond to the level of the seminar which is much lower. (High)
- The hand-ins were borderline impossible at times, as the course book was bad, and the lectures offered no help in understanding. (High)
- Same here, low if you taken SI2390 but very high otherwise and extremely time consuming beyond reason! (Low)
- The homeworks were a bit harder than what I expected but nothing that pushed my limits. I really expected more on the difficulty. It happened that I haven't learned so much this period. (Low)
Has there been much overlap with other courses?14 svarande
|Far too much overlap||7|| 50%|
|Some overlap - mostly unnecessary||4|| 28%|
|Some overlap - but useful as repetition||3|| 21%|
|No overlap||0|| 0%|
- All the math and calculations are overlap! Gamma-identities, trace technology, Feynman diagrams etc, all is already done in SI2390. The only difference is that now decay of particle a -> b,c is Z -> f f-bar. So we added a few new vertices, averaged over colours but nothing is really new. It's like going from solving the heat equation to the diffusion eq, the only thing we have changed is basically notation and what physical system it represents. This course should really be integrated with SI2390! (Far too much overlap)
- I have never done so much "nothing " at university level. The first 5 weeks were a copy and paste of the two courses I had in period 3: Relativistic Quantum Physics and Experimental Particle Physics which were both really good courses. (Far too much overlap)
- With Relativistic Quantum Physics. I suspect there may be some with the QFT course as well. (Far too much overlap)
- A large portion of the course was covered in the Relativistic Quantum Physics and Experimental Particle Physics courses. (Some overlap - mostly unnecessary)
- While I have started to specialize in this subhect, there was quite an overlap with for example relativistic quantum mechanics. Combined with experimental particle physics there was quite a few areas which had been covered 2 or 3 times already. (Some overlap - mostly unnecessary)
- A fair bit of overlap with relativistic quantum physics. (Some overlap - but useful as repetition)
How were the homework problems?14 svarande
|Very difficult||4|| 28%|
|Very easy||0|| 0%|
- Too difficult. (Very difficult)
- Homework 1, really ok.
Homework 2, ok except exercice 6 and 7 which were far beyond the level of the other exercices.
Homework 3 is interesting and I am satisfied with the difficulty. (Difficult)
- At least compared to the rest of the course. (Difficult)
- Either ok, either too difficult (mostly concerning the computations, not the methods which are rather well explained in the book) (Difficult)
- the homework problems are computationally very heavy... maybe even unnecessarily so (Difficult)
- Varying difficulty. Mostly the homework problems were not difficult but rather unnecessarily lengthy problems. The first set was quite OK in length. The second set was way too long. I handed in 36 pages! Some of the problems felt like boring proofs of stuff not quite relevant to the course. The last set of homework was better but still a liitle bit too long. One of the largest problems with the homework problems was the formulation of the problems. They were often difficult to understand exactly what the quiestion was and what was required. Often the problem formulation did not specify and define all symbols mentioned in the text, which made it very difficult to figure out how to treat the problem. (Difficult)
- While it varied greatly, overall the problems were a bit difficult. But not the good kind of difficulty.
Besides, copying excercises more or less straight from the previous course book is not a good thing. I am not sure if it can be considered an unfair advantage for those with the book, but it could easily change the difficulty of a problem if you happened to see almost the exact example in the books chapter on the subject.
Some problems had elements which were not in the book, the seminars or the lectures. I realize that at a university one should not get things served on a platter. But some parts were things which really should have been properly explained at a lecture rather than some of the simpler things presented there. (Difficult)
- Not difficult, if you've taken SI2390, but extremely cumbersome. 15-20 pages per HA is completely out of hand! SI2390 was way better, fewer problems that required much more thinking and understanding and less "mechanical writing". (Easy)
How were the quizzes?14 svarande
|Very difficult||0|| 0%|
|Very easy||4|| 28%|
- Really depended. For the end-quizzes, some questions were neither discussed during seminars, neither mentioned in the book. That is disappointing when you studied your best but you just couldn't guess something exists when you have never encountered it. (Difficult)
- The quizzes were easy and useless. (Easy)
- Those had a good level. The seminars as a whole were the best things about this course. (Easy)
- They may have been a bit on the easy side, but you had to be prepared. The where on a nice level if you had taken the time to prepare properly.
A few questions did however slip under the radar and were not found in the recommended pages in the course book, would not be a big deal if they were not questions about specific nomenclature which one need not to get exposed to even if one prepares in that specific area. (Easy)
- A few tricky questions but no difficult ones. (Very easy)
What is your opinion about the course-PM, homepage, and the administration of the course?14 svarande
|Very good||0|| 0%|
|Very poor||3|| 21%|
- The PM and the hompeage has been functional. (Good)
- The reading instructions never corresponded to the subject threated in class. (Poor)
- The information has not been distributed in a satisfactory manner. For example, when the deadline for a homework changed, this was only spread to the students orally during the seminar/lecture. No email or update on the homepage to those who did not attend these classes. The same is true for other changes during the course. (Very poor)
How did you find the course literature?14 svarande
|Very good||1|| 7%|
|Very poor||1|| 7%|
- It is a very good book. (Very good)
- The book is satisfying but some parts of the seminars are missing. Could be good to suggest some additional readings to cover everything, although it would add more work. (Good)
- never bought any of the books, used wikipedia instead. (Good)
- The book is good but the lectures and seminars do not at all correspond to the reading instructions. It was very hard to understand what to read in order to properly prepare fot the seminars. Once I got Griffith's book it was easier. It is clear that the course is adapted to Griffith's and not Thomson. (Good)
- I used last years book, Griffiths, and had the other as a pdf. It was very obvious that the course was intended to use Griffiths and I found it much better even thou it was written before the Higgs boson was found. (Poor)
- I discovered too late that Griffiths was much better. Thomson doesn't really match what goes on in the rest of the course. (Poor)
- I feel that the change in course literature was unnecessary. I understand that this was due to the addition of Higgs, but I feel that it could have been solved in some other way. The problem was that the course seems to follow the Griffiths book, and some things are missing in the Thomson book. The Thomson book is not a bad book though. (Poor)
- While the new book certainly is "sexy" and modern, the earlier book by Griffiths seems to be much more adjusted to the course.
While it is nice to have a treatement of the properties of the Higgs boson, it is not the first time in a course at KTH i have seen it explained.
Not a reason enough to change book if not the course otherwise adjusts itself. (Poor)
- Griffiths is far superior to Thomson. Bring back Griffiths! (Very poor)
How were the lectures?14 svarande
|Very good||0|| 0%|
|Very poor||6|| 42%|
|Did not participate enough to have an opinion||5|| 35%|
- They were good but not great. The teacher could earn a lot by organizing his way of utilizing the boards. Sometimes the structure got lost when he jumped between the boards a bit much.
The teacher did however clearly know the subject and was nice and friendly. Just a few small adjustements and pedagogical tricks could make them great. (Good)
- Lack of stucture both on the board and in the speech, hard to see what was really important. Did not have the feeling to learn something because it was so hard to understand what was going on. Better synchronization with the seminars would be a huge improvement. (Poor)
- By far the worst lectures I never had, very disappointed. (Very poor)
- The teacher was nice and had certainly very well studied the subject. But we could feel he didn't have enough experience. It is a difficult subject and I think a full professor is required for this course. The teacher needs to be able to focus on the subject. Here he was not comfortable writing on the board (not writing straight, clearly). It was rough and it is very difficult to follow a rough course on a subject that needs such rigorous and clear explications.
I don't think the post doc was bad, I just think that a post doc lacks experience to give such a course. (Very poor)
- I believe that the problems with the lectures were mainly due to a lack of proper preparation for the lecturer and a a lack of solid rheotorics and blackboard technique. Let the lecturer take a course in giving lectures and I think he will be a very good lecturer. (Very poor)
- Did not participate at all. (Did not participate enough to have an opinion)
How were the seminars?14 svarande
|Very good||3|| 21%|
|Very poor||0|| 0%|
- Interesting and inspiring and Stella is a really good teacher. Keep up the good work! (Very good)
- The idea with the seminars is great, and a great way of learning! It is very interesting to sit down and discuss with other people. The things I've learned from this course come from the seminars. Stella is also fantastic! (Very good)
- They have been the highlight of this course. They gave a solid understnding of the key-concepts of the course. Discussing with random persons gave a lot of understanding and to prepare for the quizzes made sure that one stayed in sync.
The teacher was knowledgeable and pedagogic. Some of the seminar questions were a bit hard to find answers to, but the discussions solved that.
It was great to see this form of teaching in this course. (Very good)
- Create another sheet of more in depth questions to actually discuss handed out at the seminars, not before, like the questions Stella asked to test understanding. (Good)
- Some questions were really easy, it could be sometimes better to have less time for discussion and a bit more for explanation by the teacher afterwards. Otherwise enjoyed this way of studying (except when a member of your group refuses to talk to you...) (Good)
- Again I felt like a lot of my questions are unanswered. I think it's a very bad way to learn this kind of stuff. (Poor)
- The questions to discuss during the seminars were not really suited for discussion. Stella was a good teacher! (Poor)
How much time did you spend preparing for a seminar on average (including reading the course literature)?14 svarande
|0-15 minutes||0|| 0%|
|15-30 minutes||3|| 21%|
|30-60 minutes||3|| 21%|
|1-2 hours||6|| 42%|
|More than 2 hours||1|| 7%|
- Really depended on the chapters though. Symmetries and QCD took more time than Dirac equation, fermions... (30-60 minutes)
- Just reading the assigned chapters took more than 1 hour, then searching for the specific answers took a bit more than 1 hour as well. Not a problem though since the seminars were well spaced. (More than 2 hours)
How much time did you spend on the homework problem sets on average?14 svarande
|< 5 hours/set||0|| 0%|
|5-10 hours/set||2|| 14%|
|10-25 hours/set||5|| 35%|
|25-50 hours/set||3|| 21%|
|> 50 hours/set||4|| 28%|
- (last homework problem set excluded) (5-10 hours/set)
- It ususally was my main project during one week each. The workload varied greatly from question to question
This last homework set has probably recieved about 50 hours. (25-50 hours/set)
- Extremely time consuming! Way to many rather easy problems but extremely long and tedious! (> 50 hours/set)
- Way too long homeworks! (> 50 hours/set)
Please enter any further comments and opinions about the course:- This course should definitely be combined with SI2390 to get some decrease overlap and not be so hand-waveing! That would also give some applications and examples to SI2390 which otherwise is a great course. Possibly create two new courses particle physics 1 & 2 or one long. This course will never be good on it's own, it just lacks way to much math and is way to much repetition. Combined with SI2390 would take both courses to a new level. It's very strange to have an advanced course where you just assume all necessary math because it's difficult and attempt to describe it as pretty diagrams! If you haven't read SI2390 you aren't prepared for this course and the solution is not to "stupidify" particle physics. This course have really made me loose a lot of interest in particle physics after really liking SI2390 :(
- I liked this course, I really think I learnt about this subject more deeply, but this is mostly thanks to personal work. Try to improve the lecture part, this should help students to save time and learn faster than by themselves, and not waste their time...
- This course should not exist. A small expansion of the Relativistic Quantum Physics course would be so much better. Increase the size of it to for example 9 credits. That would give more than enougt time to cover the things that were new in this course.
- This course should be a part of SI2390 and not a stand alone course
- This has been a bad course in which every component in itself has been good.
The book was good, but didn't fit well to the course.
The teachers hava been great, but their respective focus has been to far from each others.
The homework has been varied and enlightening on its own, however it has not built well on neither the seminars or the lectures.
This is a course which could have been a great course if one made the parts work together better.
As it is now the great part only highlights that the parts do not work together well at all. This is not a course I would recommend to others. With some work this could however easily be a great course.