Resultat av: Analytical Mechanics and Classical Field Theory, 5A1383, vt 2007Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2007-05-31 - 2007-06-29
Antal svar: 9
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 90%
Kontaktperson: Edwin Langmann
What is your overall impression of the course?9 svarande
|Very positive||8|| 88%|
|Quite postive||1|| 11%|
|Neutral - no opinion||0|| 0%|
|Quite negative||0|| 0%|
|Very negative||0|| 0%|
- A proper foundation in classical mechanichs is essential! (Very positive)
- I expected more field theory from the name of the course. (Very positive)
- very beautiful concepts. Lagrange is such a genius ! (Quite postive)
How would you rate the difficulty of the course?9 svarande
|Very difficult||0|| 0%|
|Quite difficult||3|| 33%|
|Very easy||0|| 0%|
- a lots of mathematics and intuition are needed if complex problem are to be solved (Quite difficult)
- maybe was easier for me because its formulation is mainly mathematical. (Easy)
Has there been much overlap with other courses?9 svarande
|Far too much overlap||0|| 0%|
|Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again||7|| 77%|
|Mostly unnecessary overlap||0|| 0%|
|No overlap||2|| 22%|
- we had an overview of lagrangian and hamiltonian formalisms in quantum mecanics, and some principle of least action in relativity course. (Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again)
- Overlap with almost every other course in physics! (Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again)
- Many in the beginning, but not towards the end. (Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again)
- Very good to show the connection between analytical mechanics and quantum mechanics (poisson brackets - commutators). Sometimes it was a bit hard to determine if a subject from the lecture was part of the course or just an outlook. (Some overlap, but it was useful to go over the topics again)
- Non or very little i think (No overlap)
What is your opinion about the lectures?9 svarande
|Very good||2|| 22%|
|Very poor||0|| 0%|
- A structure with chapters would maybe help to get a more general view of the course, but the lectures are well presented one by one. (Good)
What is your opinion about the written exam?9 svarande
|Too difficult||0|| 0%|
|Too easy||1|| 11%|
- some ends of exercises were very tricky, and sometimes non-solvable except analytically. (Difficult)
- Quite enjoyable!
Innovative questions, but above all:
The amount of work required was just right.
(i.e., not to many/lengthy questions) (Too easy)
How was the oral examination?9 svarande
|Very difficult||0|| 0%|
|Very easy||1|| 11%|
- I don't know, first oral exam I ever had. (Average)
- Good with an oral exam because you have to understand the theory instead of just learning how to calculate examples. (Average)
- a bit short maybe. (Easy)
- To have an oral exam is a goooood idea! (Very easy)
What is your opinion about the course literature?9 svarande
|Very good||3|| 33%|
|Very poor||0|| 0%|
- Tongs compendium was good to learn the basics.
Scheck could then be used to give a deeper/more thorough understanding of certain topics. (Good)
- Tong was a good complement to Scheck. (Good)
- Very good with both scheck and tong. i didnt like scheck, but i very much enjoyed tong. (Average)
- I was pretty impressed by the Schek book's size, so I preffered to work only with Tong's lectures notes. (Poor)
- Jag gillade inte alls Scheck. Den k?ndes v?ldigt sv?r, tjock och omst?ndig. Den tog upp massa saker som inte ingick eller var viktigt i kursen. Tongs internet-bok var d?remot v?ldigt bra och pedagogisk! Den t?ckte n?stan hela kursen. Det ?nda ?mne som jag beh?vde komplettera med en annan bok ?n Tong, var asvnittet om kopplade system av diskreta oscillatorer och ?verg?ngen till kontinuerliga system. Dvs h?rledning av v?gekvationen, klein-gordon, sein-gordon, och Euler-Lagranges ekvationer f?r funktioner av flera variabler (t,x). Detta ?mne beskrev dock Scheck bra i kapitel 7. Det var det ?nda kapitel som jag l?ste i Scheck. Jag har ?ven provat att l?sa n?got enstaka kapitel i Landau Lifshitz och den var faktiskt enklare att f?rst? ?n Scheck! och inte lika tjock och omst?ndig. Jag hade hellre haft Landau-Lifshitz som kurslitteratur ?n Sheck, och som komplement till Tongs utm?rkta internetbok! (Poor)
My prerequisites9 svarande
|More than enough||3|| 33%|
|Not enough||0|| 0%|
- P? F-programmet har det n?stan inte ing?tt n?gon analytisk mekanik alls. Sista veckan i forts?ttningskursen i mekanik behandlade vi ?mnet men v?ldigt ytligt. Vi l?rde oss bara l?sa enkla typtal, men vi fick inga h?rledningar eller n?gon teoretisk f?rst?else f?r hur det fungerade. Analytisk mekanik behandlades ?ven ytligt i fysmaten och kvantfk, men f?r ytligt f?r att man skulle f? n?gon f?rst?else. Det var d?rf?r v?ldigt bra att i den kursen g? igenom ?mnet ?nda fr?n b?rjan med ordentliga h?rledningar av de grundl?ggande principerna. (Enough)
How much work did the course take compared to other courses?9 svarande
|Much more||0|| 0%|
|Somewhat more||3|| 33%|
|Somewhat less||0|| 0%|
|Much less||0|| 0%|
- But it was self inflicted.... (Somewhat more)
Suggestions for improvement next time- maybe a better definition at the beginning of what the course will go through, some general preview.
- I think you said sometime that there isn't very many problems you can ask in a course like this, so why not have those as homework instead of KS and written exam?
- More problems with complete answers.
- From the title I expected the course to be one part analytical mechanics (Lagrange formalism, Hamilton formalism, Noether theorem...) and one other part with classical field theory (field limit, wave equation, euler fluid equations, maxwell equations...). I think the course could be improved by containing a bit more field theory. One example of advanced classical field theory could be to get the maxwell equations from the EM-lagrangian, but this is only a suggestion. Otherwise the course was very good!
- The formalities of the examination and such have to be more clearly defined, and be diplayed in the very beginning of the course - but since this is the very first time the course is given, one has of course to include the first round into the certain period of adjustment that every new course demands.
Any further comments on the course? Please enter them below.- It felt like a bit much at the end to just get "study chap 3 on rigit bodies in detail" when you had not discussed it in the lectures
- I think its a bit poor that we didnt have to do something more in the course, something about differential geometry. There should be more "?vningar", where the techers actually solves problems. Edwin is a very good teacher, and did a teriffich job in this course.
- Very interesting course!
- Kursen var bra och givande. Den presenterade analytisk mekanik p? ett bra s?tt och gav mig f?r f?rsta g?ngen en f?rst?else av ?mnet. Systemet med tv? KS:ar och b?de skriftlig och muntlig tenta var bra! Det var bra att man sj?lv (tack vare muntliga tentan) kunde v?lja lite gran vilka kapitel man ville fokusera p?. Det ?nda som inte var bra med kursen var Schecks bok! Tongs var d?remot v?ldigt bra!
- Very good course. It really fills a gap in the theoretical physics education at KTH. Preferably it is to be given in the fifth semester.