The Hardest Physics Module at Oxford University

So I've done my fair share of modules in physics and maths but nothing has really compared to Groups and Representations offered by Oxford University. Here's a breakdown of the basics of the module and delves a tad into where me and basically the whole class got lost.

[@fagauss]

Ah, Lie theory, the elegant dance of symmetry and transformation in the realm of abstract algebraic structures! One cannot help but marvel at its intricate interplay of Lie algebras and exponential maps, weaving a tapestry of mathematical elegance that transcends mere mortal comprehension. As we delve deeper into the mysterious depths of group theory and representations, we find ourselves awash in a sea of profound abstraction, where the very essence of reality itself seems to shimmer and shift beneath our intellectual gaze. Truly, Lie theory beckons us to explore the sublime beauty of mathematical abstraction, where truth and beauty converge in a harmonious symphony of mathematical enlightenment.

[@Alex.Lombardi]

I marvelled at how it railed a whole class.

[@neilnair6498]

i’m an aspiring year 13 student. i’ve just completed the admissions process and i’m waiting to hear back from oxford on my application. over year 12 i read a book on the arrow of time, and this was a topic that came up. i felt like i had an understanding up until lie groups. beyond this point, i gave up trying to understand the maths in the book, and tried to learn the holistic insights at the end of the maths section. i fancy having a crack at the problem sheet when my time comes however. maybe i’ll understand it by then 😂

[@Alex.Lombardi]

I'm doing my 4th year of Maths and physics and when I see a Lie group I have a seizure, can't even imagine how an A-level student would see it haha. Best of luck in the application process!

[@adamcummings20]

​@@Alex.LombardiSame, I'm doing similar things to you, but luckily not OxBridge level haha. When I started doing QFT, Lie groups and Clifford algebras are just thrown around as if I should know them already (maybe I should). Gonna take some study. Good luck to ya

[@padraighill4558]

Definitely a lot easier to study this stuff from a Maths background. Dimension is just a number!

[@husain8056]

this, and math as well, for me it was complex algebraic manipulation, it drives me crazy every time. Best of luck in your studies.

[@Alex.Lombardi]

Oh I’m not even gonna talk about the pure maths modules in offer. I dropped out of 2 classes after 1 week 😂. Pure maths is a different ball game to physics. I’ve heard algebraic topology is the bad man of the pure maths options.

[@maxgeorge1463]

@@Alex.Lombardi yeah I tried self studying algebraic topology after finishing up most of basic and advanced algebra about two weeks ago. I am no longer attempting to self-study algebraic topology ☠

[@Alex.Lombardi]

@@maxgeorge1463 I think I'd rather do anything else with my time than AT. I'd rather community service.

[@maxgeorge1463]

@@Alex.Lombardi lol valid opinion.

[@AaronKher]

Went from spinning a piece of paper to "topologicmanifoldtensorspacehomotoy10dsedrepresentaiton" slightly too quick for me...

[@Alex.Lombardi]

It was roughly the same speed they did in lectures. I wanted everyone to know what was up 😅

[@markkennedy9767]

Trusting the maths vs trusting intuition: literally the bane of my life in my TP course. Interesting to hear you refer to it as "nonsense", which many times I would do. So what keeps you going through the nonsense?

[@adandap]

If the whole class gets lost it sounds like poor teaching.

[@rohannuckchady2900]

Dude that course ain’t that bad, what’s a fking pain in that course is the shit about the youngs diagrams and no lecture notes when I took it. But I thought now you have notes, is it still that annoying ? And perhaps that I couldn’t find any other rescources to understand what was going on I’m the course. however when it came to the exam it wasn’t that bad, the groups/representation theory part wasn’t too bad but the applications I still didn’t get how they worked with the youngs stuff. But the thing is you do need that course for the MMathPhys theoretical physics side

[@Alex.Lombardi]

Ah mate the Youngs stuff still ain't the most clear, i have to find other lecture notes for them. Tis do be an absolute pain till this day haha

[@soyokou.2810]

Math student learning Lie theory here. It ain't easy for us either.

[@Alex.Lombardi]

If the maths students find it hard imagine us physics ones 😅

[@barneycasting8331]

What do you gain by solving such hard problems? Is it the satisfaction that you are "better" than someone that you see at the bus stop ??

[@Alex.Lombardi]

No, I mean on the surface with pure maths, people look at all the time and think it'll never have any use. But time and time again we see it does and in this case it's the building blocks for describing the Standard model of particle physics. So I'd say the satisfaction is 95% understanding the building blocks of particle physics and 5% showing off to the person at the bus stop😁

[@C0MPLEXITY]

blud records on 4:3

[@Alex.Lombardi]

And here I was thinking Sherlock Holmes was fictional 🤨

[@C0MPLEXITY]

lol@@Alex.Lombardi great video btw

[@JohnVKaravitis]

Hey, great! Let's offer a course where 99% of students fail it!

[@paddydad]

you are so big!

[@Alex.Lombardi]

Cheers dawg

[@vansf3433]

It is even more absurd when the number of times of the negative quantity of apples is negative. It is nonsensical to express the number of times of something, some actions, some events in any negative number. Ex: How many times have you been to London? You cannot say that i have been there negative 4 times You cannot say that the number students at Oxford university has increased negative 2 times -2 X last year's student population = a negative number of students, which makes no sense at all I hope that, with such simple examples and unambiguous explanations, by now you guys should already have got an idea that you can never ever multiply any negative number by any other number, in the real physical world, and that human-invented notions of mathematics are applicable to human constructive development only when they are aligned with such objective and undeniable facts in the real physical world, but not in the invented notions themselves within human mathematicians' extremely limited knowledge The reason why such human fundamental misunderstandings of their own invented notions of mathematics have been existing since the time such notions were invented is that all human-invented concepts and notions of natural sciences taught at schools of all levels of education have never ever been related to the real physical world, and always been represented in such ambiguity in which real physical forms of matter in our everyday life in the real physical world are completely absent Ambiguity without any representation of the real world, and with only numbers and notions of mathematics is the root of human fundamental misunderstandings of their own invented notions of mathematics, physics and astronomy What you are taught at schools are: -2 X 2 = - 4 , 2 x -2 = -4 -2 x -2 = + 4, +2 x + 2 = +4 2 x 2 = 4 Without any specific form of matter or physical entity in such arithmetic operation, you cannot see any irrationality of such nonsensical notions of mathematics . But when you apply such invented notions to the real physical world, you will notice such absurdity as what i am showing you guys here Let's see how absurd they are 2 X 2 = 4 that is possible and correct in the real physical world because the numbers can represent forms of matter or physical entities , such as 2 times of 2 avocados = 4 avocados But +2 x + 2 = +4 and -2 x -2 = also + 4 Since both of the equation yield the same value +4 on the RHS, their LHS must be equal: +2 x + 2 = +4 and -2 x -2 = also + 4 ----> +2 x +2 = -2 x -2 = + 4 -----> +2 = - 2 , which is insane Similarly, 0! = 1 and 1! = also 1 -----> 0 = 1, which is madness Now, if you put some form of matter with the nonsensical numbers, say tables, you will get expressions of nonsense positive 2 times of positive 2 tables = negative 2 times of negative 2 tables = positive 4 tables The nonsensical notion of imaginary or complex numbers originated in those human fundamental misunderstandings. I'll let you guys do some brain work to see if you guys can figure out where the problem began. Those are merely a small part of all human fundamental misunderstandings in human-invented notions of mathematics, but they are the foundational notions for all other later invented notions of mathematics, including discrete maths, calculus, linear algebra and abstract maths