Genuine question for Tony... as an A-level physics teacher I am in full agreement that the syllabus is dated in the sense that it does not necessarily prepare A-Level students for the reality of physics as it is today. But... I feel that giving them a solid grounding in classical physics is the natural beginning to the 'story' of physics. It is in these problems and scenarios that they learn to apply the maths that they have learnt over the years in a real and intuitive way. The syllabus, and any teacher worth their salt, then has the responsibility to whet their appetite for what they may go onto learn at Uni. Giving more lesson time to more recent developments won't allow them that context to build the skills they later require. It is asking them to run before they can walk if you will. I don't really honestly see how quantum theory could be really delved into any deeper without having a complete knowledge of the language of classical physics to contrast it with in the first place. Their is no appreciation of wave-particle duality for example if they haven't spent the time appreciating the fundamentals of wave phenomena. Having taught kids from all over the world at this level something like 2 source interference is enough of a mental leap for them to take at this stage. To push it much further would risk losing them. We are not necessarily 'afraid' of the mathematics, it is simply a case of emphasizing the intuition involved as well as the abstraction involved with mathematics in tandem. My final worry is that classical physics is the bedrock of the engineering disciplines and without a really thorough and sound understanding of the fundamental (albeit dated) concepts then they will undoubtedly suffer. This is a debate which is very important right now as new curricula are being developed under the A-Level reforms.
Are things like wave partical duality not covered in England? In Scotland we do cover that pretty early on, we don't do much in terms of quantum theory but we cover things like the de brogli wavelength, uncertainty principle, photo electric effect and some what weirdly we look at bohrs model of the atom but in chemistry we look at the actual model of the atom from Schrodinger. We also cover special relativity, it seems weird that you could do physics and not cover those topics since they are modern physics
yeah,,,, classical physics is hugely important in my eyes... if you can't do that stuff you have no business working with relativety or quantum mechanics... it sets up the math perfectly... for example... even classical wave mechanics/mathematics is difficult but HUGELY important for quantum mechanics... if you can't work with classical waves how do you every expect to be able to work with quantum waves?
The point Tony made about the radio show ("It's cool to fear maths.") is exactly where I get emotional about, everytime I talk about maths. Sure you can live a perfectly good live without knowing about physics or maths. But that also applies to history or Shakespeare (here in Germany it would be Goethe, though). But: If you lack knowledge about the latter ones, you'll be considered to be ignorant or dumb. If you lack knowledge about maths that ok. Everyone understands you. Math is hard. :-(
I am an adult who found out gravity was curves in spacetime at 27 years old. I felt cheated by the idea I was taught in schools that gravity is a force that pulls things down.
Also, to add my experience to this, during my A Level we did the "Cosmology" option, this was the last year that started before the 2008 modules started. There was a lot of Special Relativity, but our teacher couldn't figure out to explain it to us, so we had several weeks where we were watching videos about Special Relativity and this helped me a lot when I came to the subject at University. However, General Relativity is only covered in the fourth year at Hull so many don't study it.
When I did my physics A-level course in 2000-2002, I definitely remember discussing the photoelectric effect which was mentioned in the video, but I'm sure I remember looking at the wave function and discussing quantum tunnelling - and we definitely did some special relativity. I can't remember whether those were optional modules or not.
From Canada here, I think the point is that they should teach more of the modern physics, in other words what we now actually believe to be the closest model to reality, and less of the old ways. I am a lucky person who had the chance to be told about quantum mechanics and relativity earlier because of a high school physics teacher who had a more "visionary" vision of physics, and today I see the impacts of his efforts. It's not about making it harder, it's about making it more real and concrete
I must say I admire you for taking the initiative to teach yourself early - maths definitely gets more interesting the more challenging it is, and it's great that you're seeing how good it is at that age. People don't realise how good it is because the first time they see calculus is when they're in Y12 (in UK), and even then it only really gets challenging in F-Maths. I hope you carry on with the same enthusiasm, and aspire to high targets because your curiosity and motivation will get you far.
Before high school I didn't like math, It wasn't until I realized that EVERYTHING can be explained by mathematical systems that I realized that I began to take an interest in it. This is what is important to explain from a young age. I watched the indie movie pi and it also helped me realize this
Even know it's pretty much the same. I'm currently doing as physics and we basically only learn about the Photoelectric effect and electron diffraction.
No matter how well the school teaches, you are forced to follow their timeline whether you understand the material or not. Self teaching is the best way to go to because you go at your own pace and allows you to understand the stuff better than someone who was forced to learn it.
It might be worthwhile to introduce QM as weird but ALSO completely accurate. Both concepts together. This would prepare students for the fact that its concepts are counter intuitive but also encourage them to press on because it is in fact the way the universe works.
Weird thing for me is that i've just turned 16, and i'm teaching/taught myself calculus now, getting into implicit differentiation etc and I love it - strangely I love math, I love a challenge, I only know one more person like this... and he's my best friend.
He is so right about the maths. I'm in second year of a level physics (doing aqa exams) and the maths really isn't difficult at all. The most complicated maths is using natural logs and rearranging/manipulating them but still this is easy. I did AS maths (first year of a level) and that was much more challenging but it was never really applied to any real world situations such as physics which I think is a real shame; without and understanding of application you never really understand the basis behind the maths or find it as interesting as it probably is.
I graduated from high school last year and while we did more modern stuff than Tony probably did in his day, we still probably didnt do that much. The topics that we covered that could be considered as modern/recent physics were: Discrete Energy and Radioactivity 7.1 Discrete energy and discrete energy levels Transitions between energy levels Radioactive decay Fundamental forces and their properties Alpha particles, beta particles and gamma rays Half-life Absorption characteristics of decay particles Isotopes Background radiation Nuclear reactions 7.2 The unified atomic mass unit Mass defect and nuclear binding energy Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion The structure of matter 7.3 Quarks, leptons and their antiparticles Hadrons, baryons and mesons The conservation laws of charge, baryon number, lepton number and strangeness The nature and range of the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force Exchange particles Feynman diagrams Confinement The Higgs boson Thermal energy transfer 8.2 Conduction, convection and thermal radiation Black-body radiation Albedo and emissivity The solar constant The greenhouse effect Energy balance in the Earth surface-atmosphere system The interaction of matter with radiation 12.1 Photons The photoelectric effect Matter waves Pair production and pair annihilation Quantization of angular momentum in the Bohr model for hydrogen The wave function The uncertainty principle for energy and time and position and momentum Tunnelling, potential barrier and factors affecting tunnelling probability Nuclear physics
12.2 Rutherford scattering and nuclear radius Nuclear energy levels The neutrino The law of radioactive decay and the decay constant Relativity A.1 Reference frames Galilean relativity and Newton’s postulates concerning time and space Maxwell and the constancy of the speed of light Forces on a charge or current Lorentz transformations A.2 The two postulates of special relativity Clock synchronization The Lorentz transformations Velocity addition Invariant quantities (spacetime interval, proper time, proper length and rest mass) Time dilation Length contraction The muon decay experiment Spacetime diagrams Worldlines The twin paradox
I think he has a point. We live in a technical world and it's getting more technical faster and faster. So it's important to do these to at least keep in touch. This doesn't apply to non-scientific areas where the dependence and rate of progress of our society doesn't change significantly
U cant b more right. I’m currently a Yr 11 student in Aus. & chose physics as 1 of my electives. For the first yr we study Newtonian physics while in year 12 we do special relativity the cosmos etc.The problem is everything we learn now has been around for quite some time while the stuff we learn little of is what we will need to know of the most, and is essential in future years as technology and physics progress.We are 2 fixed in the classical world as opposed to the one we are evolving into.
I would just like to notice something, as far as I can tell, he is looking at his AS book (basing on the content) - the book from 1st year of A-level. During 2nd year (A2) we are covering other topics, such as particle physics. Even though I have to agree that syllabus doesn't include enough quantum theory or relativity. There is another thing I consider to be a problem, which is the composition of exams, year by year nearly neglecting the maths, replacing it with written questions...
In Advanced Placement physics in highschool in the US, the syllabus was pretty much the same as it was for him. We did photoelectric effect for a month or so with a lab, and we watched a video that explained uncertainty in terms of basic Fourier theory.
I think it's hard to introduce quantum theory without any knowledge of linear algebra and accommodating those who haven't taken calculus yet. I'd like to see some Minkowski diagrams though.
AQA Physics A, there's a bit of algebra and a small amount of exponential stuff now I'm doing A2, but it's nothing that the people in my group who haven't done maths haven't picked up within a double lesson (1 hour 40 mins) with the lesson going at the usual pace.
Yea I have done High Level IB maths then come to university (Doing a masters in Mechanical Engineering at Cardiff University) and its all stuff ive already done. I sit in the lecture wondering why on earth I'm here then theres all these peope from the A-levels that have done none of this before and its just mindboggling.
From the aspect of a student just finishing a high school physics course, I find that all that has been said is correct, their is a smaller requirement for maths than of remembering facts. However in my school in Australia we just spent a term ( 8-12 weeks ) on reletivity and light. And throughout the entire course their were approximatly 30% of Test marks were math, while all other marks were from knowledge and understanding concepts. and as a sidenote, special rel was the highest physicscoverd
10 years ago we did do some relativity and quantum mechanics. We also learnt about quarks, wave particle duality, slit experiments and particle interactions via Feynman diagrams. So it looks like things might have regressed; /
I agree with everything said here, Dr Padilla. Even in IB, and not just A-levels, my entire class would complain in SL Physcis about the Maths in the course. Our HL Mathematics class was only 10 people accross the entire year...
I really enjoy relativity in statistics and calculus.. I know some of the basics of physics (I find it helps around in game development when creating a more realistic environment with stuff like illumination and the Inverse Quadratic Function) a lot of it, is fantastic and does relate to real-life.
I was 'scared' of maths for many years. It's only since I've matured mentally and philosophically that I've appreciated that maths is the language of the universe; that it explains everything that works and the way it works, and it's taught terribly to adolescents. I'm 29 and only now am I realising how important mathematics is, so much so that I've quit my job and am concentrating on studying maths/physics/engineering because they're always on my mind; they're the mechanics of existence...
I think what Tony was trying to say, but it did not quite come across because of the lengthyness of the interview i suppose, ss that it ultimately is about conciousness raising. An understanding of how the world you live in actually work, is a part of the process of conciousness raising. In my own opinion, if a society were to gain a broader view of the world surrounding us, than it currently has, it would "raise the entire floor" of the society, in many different areas. Morally, economicly etc
First I have a PhDs in chemical engineering and my first degree was in physics. I am not scared of Maths. I understand why tony is so frustrated by the level of students Maths level nowadays. However I do not agree with his arguments about why everyone should know a bit of physics or advanced Maths. Similarly do all of us need to learn Dutch, Chinese, Egyptian... Live is short. We choose what are most important and interested for us to learn. Also I do enjoy learn from RUclips. Thanks Brady. When go to a conference, I listen to the speakers. I found it is much easier to grab the concepts than reading the paper they published. As many authors' first language is not English, they may not exactly mean what they written.
its pretty extreme in the US too, I honestly didnt learn a damn thing in highschool. I learned everything i now know in college. I have a feeling that most western societies are going to have to start thinking differently about how we teach. Math especially needs to be rethought, all of modern society rides on the carrying on the torch of deep understanding of maths to future generations
I've got an answer for Brady's question @ 11:28 Because people vote. How can anyone hope to make informed decisions on important matters which rest upon a proper understanding of physics. Important matters like funding for further study, education, creating sustainable energies, investing in future technologies, etc.
I like Tony's passion in this video. Brady can be fairly disarming (in a good way) when he asks his interview subjects to justify their opinions. I thought Tony fielded the challenge well at the end. A passing knowledge of physics and math should be as valuable to us as a knowledge of Shakespeare or art history or anything else. Why know anything about Shakespeare? The answer to that answers the same question about physics. I now wish I knew more about both.
We did a lot of particle physics at AS physics as well as some quantum phenomena. In a2 it's a lot of basic old stuff but also some special rel for some students
asking that question on a video with 1000:7 ratio... I'll say one thing I dislike a lot: the low audio level is pretty awful. Not every dislike is "I hate the content" or "I disagree".
I think I understand what this fella means near the end, about living in an enlightened society. There's a 'disproportionate' effect between what kids and young adults learn about Shakespeare and what they learn about quantum theory and relativity. I wonder if there's any other subjects with this kind of 'disproportionate' level of study.
At school I didn't get to do any modern physics, not sure if it's because I'm in queensland and the curriculum is different to the other states or if it was just my school. Lucky we have the internet
The thing is, I'm studying A Level Physics at the moment, and the general student consensus is that things like quantum theory and relativity are by far the most interesting and engaging parts of the syllabus, whilst the old, dry topics from 200, 300 years ago are what turn people off. Increasing the amount of modern, relevant physics is only going to get more people interested in physics.
I think while the standard maths a level isn't all that great in preparing you for under grad theoretical physics or maths, most further maths syllabus I'd say are decent at introducing heavily used maths in a first course in quantum theory or relativity. However most university undergrad physics courses don't require further maths as a level to do which I think is the problem. The education is there, but people have the option to evade it and many of them do just that. Before taking about the lack of relativity or quantum theory in A level physics I think we need to stress the complete absence of calculus from a level physics first. I mean forget what I said about further maths in the last paragraph, people seem to think you can take physics at uni without doing any maths at all in a level which is akin to doing English literature without being able to read!
I'm not sure how deep it should really go so as not to just completely confuse people but I do agree with some of the points being made about demystifying it so it isn't seen like some fuzzy thing that doesn't affect the real world. Why not do some basic stuff regarding relativity and QM perhaps by relating it to things that are part of peoples lives, like investigating time dilation using the model of the GPS system or talking about the effects of quantum uncertainty on the transistor which is getting increasingly relevant as we keep trying to make the things ever smaller with ever fewer dopant atoms contained in each.
actually in my state special relativity is optional. you choose between that, more electronics or materials. we do do a bit of quantum theory but it's pretty much the same as tony described.
That's why we have videos like sixty symbols, minutephysics, cpg grey, veritasium etc. These videos explain lots of science without those 'scary' details, and eventually as people are more exposed to it, they get into the details. This, I think is what formal schooling cannot provide.
Actualy. At least if you take AP (advanced placement) or running start (attending community college for high school) you do learn some of these. I cant speak for running start too much or AP physics, as they don't offer it at my school. But in my AP chemistry class our first couple of chapter we have gone over has been Physics based. Such as quantum theory, the photoelectric effect, kinetic molecular theory and such. So the US is behind, but we are still better than one would think.
My kid is 7 and has a basic grasp of relativity, multi dimensional thinking and quantum mechanics. Thank you Dr. Who for introducing it. I kid you not. Can he do the math? Of course not. But having your brain around the basics this early helps when the math does pop up.
Thats odd I did AQA and we had ALOT more maths in it :S I think because our teacher was a maths one he crossed the two over alot more because we all also did both subjects. He even implemented differentiation and integration.
I am just repeating what one of the physicists that Brady was interviewing said in one of his videos. Not all physicists are great mathematicians, but they have to be good at the math that their job requires.
I think the idea Brady, is that though people may not know how to white balance your camera, it is fair to assume that you would think it is an overall positive if people enjoy cameras and the artform of videography and photography. Though you wouldn't expect me to be a ninja with a camera if I was a physicist, you would hope that i could enjoy taking pictures of my family and all that just for the good hearted nature. I guess people should just enjoy the reality and good hearted nature of PHYS
I'm a physics major at a university, and I wish my high school physics had just a little bit of calculus. And I especially wish there was more recent stuff than the "a ball is rolling down an inclined plane at 30 degrees....".
I think they should offer a further physics A-level, but having done physics a-level recently I did do special relativity and did touch on quantum physics.
I think the main issue with science education (in the UK) is that the expectations are not high enough at GCSE - its far to easy. Then, when people go on to study science at college there is a huge leap between the level of knowledge needed. This isn't fair on the students. I think the level of teaching at secondary schools need to improve, we need to expect more of people taking GCSEs and make the exams harded (e.g getting rid of multiple choice questions).
I SO agree with the thought of the educated citizen... people should know about many things, including at least an overview about modern physics. I'm from Germany, and we did not cover many modern aspects of physics at all. I'm now in engineering, where it doesn't matter really. But as I'm interested in it, I try to understand at least the broad picture. With this stagnant levels of knowledge, we'll never have the enterprise :(
As I was going through senior year high school the textbooks were just starting to introduce quantum mechanics and relativity. the math was highly simplistic but, at least it wasn't just the Bohr model of the atom...
Just to add some debate to this, surely learning all the basics and the "old" stuff is useful to get the basics of physics. Even learning Quantum Theory in my first year of University (I'm in 4th year now), there was a lot of basic background which leads into the more complex stuff. At A level we were told we should take A Level Maths, even though there was little maths in the Physics course, but I do remember some basic calculus. There should be more "old" stuff at GCSE to lead into new stuff
In New Zealand I think you either had to or it as strongly recommended to take calculus when you took the last level of Physics in high School, but since I've left the system has changed slightly, so it could be different now...
I love the 2:36 when he thinks the red draws are feynam diagrams of particles and the other guy just completely denies it with hesitation. A little harsh may i say.
Well my friend , it is a fact that nowadays all over the world math are taught either as souless recipes that are only for blind use or like mathematicians learn them full of axioms with fancy confusing symbols and no straightforward examples of their use or their origin(like what was the need that time for this theory to arise , what problem solved or were trying to solve ) . On the other hand we have internet which means that we dont't have to be completly dependent on a school/univercity .
well one problem with math classrooms is that they move on even if not all the students have grasped the content taught.The reason people go to khan academy and other similar sites is because they can learn things at their own pace.So the problem is inherently with the system , cause it doesn't allow for teachers to spend extra time on certain topics that maybe some children haven not yet fully understood.What khan academy has done is thoroughly beneficial so don't say it like it's bad.
It is easy to agree with Tony's point's (and the other guy's too) but in practice it means that something else has to go, unless we make the whole syllabus bigger. He was flicking through his notes telling us it was all old and went past a page with electric circuits on it. So do we leave out electricity just because it is old? It's barely covered in any case. I gather a lot of optics got dropped and I think it would interesting start the conversation at the other end, ie what can be dropped?
This reminded me of the movie K-Pax where he asks the alien guy how he knows all this "complicated science stuff" and he says where he comes from it's just common knowledge... Seems like the physics that is being taught early on that we've known about for hundreds of years at this point should be common knowledge to us, the same way everyone knows the Earth orbits the Sun.
A major flaw in his argument is assuming everyone studying physics at high school progresses onto pure physics. The reality is in the numbers, Far more people go on to engineering and other applied science fields than those that become theoretical physicists. So in this regard it would be unfair to skew the curriculum towards the esoteric at the cost of sound fundamentals.
Actually, the point is not that "It's not strange", in fact it is, but the thing is that although it's strange we fully understand what's strange about it and it's not too hard to understand what is strange about it. I mean hell the way some angler fish reproduce is weird too (bad analogy, I know!) But it doesn't mean we shouldn't teach them!
I'm only just ending AS and I've done way more than he seems to think. Feynmann diagrams, all of the photoelectric effect and we've done a little relativity but it's mostly A2.
I think you need to realise that A level physics can't cover particle physics or quantum or relativity because it's so lacking in any maths - you only get a superficial treatment, a largely qualitative treatment and you don't actually get much of a clue about what modern physics is. I'm just going in to my third year now so i can confirm these guy's views on this, A level really doesn't do the job in preparing you for university, or inspiring people to learn more about physics.
But then there is just so much time to use for doing maths and physics in school. I kind of oppose Tonys view in the video and would rather use the time in school for a more deep insight on classical physics, including the mathematical foundation for treating more complex problems. You can have pretty challenging problems in thermodynamics, electrodynamics or just classical mechanics. If you instead extend the spectrum of topics too far, at some point you HAVE to cut the maths and at that point you are basically just give a description of contents of physics and effectively learn nothing. I think some solid understanding of calculus and linear algebra and their application in solving some more general problems is going to prepare you a lot better for university physics than just being told stuff about spacetime curvature in words, since there is no way you can actually find the time to get any deeper than that in school. Sure, you can be told about special relativity and do some calculations after being given the formulae, but that's about it. And then there is quantum theory. What can you really do in the given amount of time (without cutting short on the maths and other topics) that goes beyond the photoelectric effect and maybe talking about double slit experiments? And from my understanding, that's the extent to which those topics are being covered anyway. But solving schroedinger's equation and actually pulling some knowledge out of it? How are you going to do that in school? And that is basically the entry level, right?
I've never done A level physics myslef but I am doing advanced higher (which I think is roughly the same level). We do some photo electric effect and some Special Relativity in the level below (higher) and gloss over stuff like Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle and General Relativity at AH. Seeing that this video is fairly old, this may be because the system has been updated. Also, maths should be taught much differently, you don't start to look at nice mathematical theories and proofs until Advanced Higher, and even then there isn't much.
If you think that it's bad in the UK, my Physics and Chemistry classes in High School in the US had no math. Worse, Physics only covered Newtonian Physics. I had to read up on quantum physics and relativity on my own.
they should teach all 3 branches of physics, newtonian, quantum and relativistic. but quantum theory and relativity should be in ALL schools just in slightly simplified mathematical terms. for physics students though, all 3 subjects should be explored to the max, full math.
I like these arguments a lot, and I agree that they (the branches of physics) should be well known to everyone at least on a basic level. Having and being within a culture that frowns upon that though is quite problematic, and so it is culture that should change seeing how physics cannot and should not.
Yes, the "fear of math" in the UK is pretty extreme. The fact that you can take A-Level physics without taking a-level math says a lot about how little math is valued. But even without that, the actual way that math is taught today (and this is not UK specific) is pretty horrible and makes it very hard to actually find math interesting.
Dropped out of education at 17, now at 30 reteaching myself the fundamentals. In my humble opinion you spend your GCSE/A level ages (which are so critical) being crammed full of answers. I now know the key is not the answer, in fact that is almost irrelevant. The key is asking the right questions........
David Hanley its not irrelevant, knowing answers; having knowledge helps you expand your knowledge. Never disregard it all, but asking the correct questions and knowing where too look are much more fundamental.
Can Tony do a video explaining more examples of Quantum theory and Relativity in everyday life? A bit more detail for those of us who are interested, but not scientists or mathematicians. :)
that would work if the kids were there for the school. but if you have been to a school most of the kids there want to hangout with their friends or they just wait till they can go home.
In the UK high school kids learn Quantum Theory but not Special Relativity. In Australia kids learn Special Relativity but not Quantum Theory. Here in America kids learn neither. Now you tell me who's the furthest behind.
they still have to teach newtonian physics first, because all civil engineering and architecture is done with newtonian science. but they still should also teach quantum theory and relativity, atleast in simplified terms so people know what it's about but newtonian physics is at the core of civilization, since it is very accurate at normal size and speed scales.
i agree 100%. /rant Most of my high school physics is the same thing over and over. THAT is what made it boring for me. i go to math and learn functions, then physics is newton, history is WWII. next year isn't MORE, its the same thing AGAIN. feels like I'm just being beaten over the head, but they wont give me the next part. it's like catching the first 30min of a movie over and over, after the second time you lose interest if you can't see the whole thing. /endrant
I don't know if the problem is the same accross countries, but what I (being a Norwegian high school student) have noticed is that you are taught math to know it, not to understand it. There is a big difference between the two, and untill you actually understand it, math WILL be boring.
I agree with Tony, I think the whole paradigm of calling 'Quantum' some weird thing that's nothing to do with the way to world is, and is too hard to understand by definition needs to change. The "Weirdness" of QM feels more like a meme that's just passed down now, even by teachers. Before they even introduce the topic they say its very strange...its not, it's simply how the universe works. We're taught to believe its strange, I was lucky to have read about it as a kid so I dont have that view.
We do little quantum mechanics at my highschool, a little bit of the photoelectric effect, something of the uncertainty principle, the quantum states... Not much, but something. No relativity so far. Though I would bet that if I were to ask what quantum mechanics is to any of my classmates, they wouldn't know how to answer. They just study to past the course and that's it, they forget. In 2 years, they are gonna remember nothing. Why is that? It's how nature works, what's more important?
"without maths we would just live in a cave" Best sound byte ever.
I must say, Tonys got some lovely hand writing from highschool
Genuine question for Tony... as an A-level physics teacher I am in full agreement that the syllabus is dated in the sense that it does not necessarily prepare A-Level students for the reality of physics as it is today. But... I feel that giving them a solid grounding in classical physics is the natural beginning to the 'story' of physics. It is in these problems and scenarios that they learn to apply the maths that they have learnt over the years in a real and intuitive way. The syllabus, and any teacher worth their salt, then has the responsibility to whet their appetite for what they may go onto learn at Uni. Giving more lesson time to more recent developments won't allow them that context to build the skills they later require. It is asking them to run before they can walk if you will. I don't really honestly see how quantum theory could be really delved into any deeper without having a complete knowledge of the language of classical physics to contrast it with in the first place. Their is no appreciation of wave-particle duality for example if they haven't spent the time appreciating the fundamentals of wave phenomena. Having taught kids from all over the world at this level something like 2 source interference is enough of a mental leap for them to take at this stage. To push it much further would risk losing them. We are not necessarily 'afraid' of the mathematics, it is simply a case of emphasizing the intuition involved as well as the abstraction involved with mathematics in tandem. My final worry is that classical physics is the bedrock of the engineering disciplines and without a really thorough and sound understanding of the fundamental (albeit dated) concepts then they will undoubtedly suffer. This is a debate which is very important right now as new curricula are being developed under the A-Level reforms.
Are things like wave partical duality not covered in England? In Scotland we do cover that pretty early on, we don't do much in terms of quantum theory but we cover things like the de brogli wavelength, uncertainty principle, photo electric effect and some what weirdly we look at bohrs model of the atom but in chemistry we look at the actual model of the atom from Schrodinger.
We also cover special relativity, it seems weird that you could do physics and not cover those topics since they are modern physics
@@nope110 ye we do learn wave particle duality now. It's weird that they didn't do this 8 years ago
yeah,,,, classical physics is hugely important in my eyes... if you can't do that stuff you have no business working with relativety or quantum mechanics... it sets up the math perfectly...
for example... even classical wave mechanics/mathematics is difficult but HUGELY important for quantum mechanics... if you can't work with classical waves how do you every expect to be able to work with quantum waves?
Brady, I hope you find your way into more media. You are an inspired interviewer.
The point Tony made about the radio show ("It's cool to fear maths.") is exactly where I get emotional about, everytime I talk about maths. Sure you can live a perfectly good live without knowing about physics or maths. But that also applies to history or Shakespeare (here in Germany it would be Goethe, though).
But: If you lack knowledge about the latter ones, you'll be considered to be ignorant or dumb. If you lack knowledge about maths that ok. Everyone understands you. Math is hard. :-(
This man is such a legend, i'd pay to have him teach me physics
I am an adult who found out gravity was curves in spacetime at 27 years old. I felt cheated by the idea I was taught in schools that gravity is a force that pulls things down.
Also, to add my experience to this, during my A Level we did the "Cosmology" option, this was the last year that started before the 2008 modules started. There was a lot of Special Relativity, but our teacher couldn't figure out to explain it to us, so we had several weeks where we were watching videos about Special Relativity and this helped me a lot when I came to the subject at University. However, General Relativity is only covered in the fourth year at Hull so many don't study it.
Math is undervalued in America. With a solid grasp on mathematics it makes complex physical theories easier to understand.
When I did my physics A-level course in 2000-2002, I definitely remember discussing the photoelectric effect which was mentioned in the video, but I'm sure I remember looking at the wave function and discussing quantum tunnelling - and we definitely did some special relativity. I can't remember whether those were optional modules or not.
8 years later and we now learn feynman diagrams. You should do this again and see if the education for physics has changed
From Canada here, I think the point is that they should teach more of the modern physics, in other words what we now actually believe to be the closest model to reality, and less of the old ways. I am a lucky person who had the chance to be told about quantum mechanics and relativity earlier because of a high school physics teacher who had a more "visionary" vision of physics, and today I see the impacts of his efforts. It's not about making it harder, it's about making it more real and concrete
Those inclined plane problems, they *really* put me to sleep!
I must say I admire you for taking the initiative to teach yourself early - maths definitely gets more interesting the more challenging it is, and it's great that you're seeing how good it is at that age. People don't realise how good it is because the first time they see calculus is when they're in Y12 (in UK), and even then it only really gets challenging in F-Maths. I hope you carry on with the same enthusiasm, and aspire to high targets because your curiosity and motivation will get you far.
Bravo to Brady and all his team/guests. Your videos are immense. Keep up the great work!
Thank you iv'e had those complains on my school for a while it is nice to hear a teacher have those same complains
Before high school I didn't like math, It wasn't until I realized that EVERYTHING can be explained by mathematical systems that I realized that I began to take an interest in it. This is what is important to explain from a young age. I watched the indie movie pi and it also helped me realize this
"without maths [...] we might as well just live in a cave"
Yes!
Even know it's pretty much the same. I'm currently doing as physics and we basically only learn about the Photoelectric effect and electron diffraction.
No matter how well the school teaches, you are forced to follow their timeline whether you understand the material or not. Self teaching is the best way to go to because you go at your own pace and allows you to understand the stuff better than someone who was forced to learn it.
It might be worthwhile to introduce QM as weird but ALSO completely accurate. Both concepts together. This would prepare students for the fact that its concepts are counter intuitive but also encourage them to press on because it is in fact the way the universe works.
Weird thing for me is that i've just turned 16, and i'm teaching/taught myself calculus now, getting into implicit differentiation etc and I love it - strangely I love math, I love a challenge, I only know one more person like this... and he's my best friend.
How refreshing to hear him speak, He is bang on correct.
He is so right about the maths. I'm in second year of a level physics (doing aqa exams) and the maths really isn't difficult at all. The most complicated maths is using natural logs and rearranging/manipulating them but still this is easy. I did AS maths (first year of a level) and that was much more challenging but it was never really applied to any real world situations such as physics which I think is a real shame; without and understanding of application you never really understand the basis behind the maths or find it as interesting as it probably is.
I graduated from high school last year and while we did more modern stuff than Tony probably did in his day, we still probably didnt do that much. The topics that we covered that could be considered as modern/recent physics were:
Discrete Energy and Radioactivity
7.1
Discrete energy and discrete energy levels
Transitions between energy levels
Radioactive decay
Fundamental forces and their properties
Alpha particles, beta particles and gamma rays
Half-life
Absorption characteristics of decay particles
Isotopes
Background radiation
Nuclear reactions
7.2
The unified atomic mass unit
Mass defect and nuclear binding energy
Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion
The structure of matter
7.3
Quarks, leptons and their antiparticles
Hadrons, baryons and mesons
The conservation laws of charge, baryon number, lepton number and strangeness
The nature and range of the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force
Exchange particles
Feynman diagrams
Confinement
The Higgs boson
Thermal energy transfer
8.2
Conduction, convection and thermal radiation
Black-body radiation
Albedo and emissivity
The solar constant
The greenhouse effect
Energy balance in the Earth surface-atmosphere system
The interaction of matter with radiation
12.1
Photons
The photoelectric effect
Matter waves
Pair production and pair annihilation
Quantization of angular momentum in the Bohr model for hydrogen
The wave function
The uncertainty principle for energy and time and position and momentum
Tunnelling, potential barrier and factors affecting tunnelling probability
Nuclear physics
12.2
Rutherford scattering and nuclear radius
Nuclear energy levels
The neutrino
The law of radioactive decay and the decay constant
Relativity
A.1
Reference frames
Galilean relativity and Newton’s postulates concerning time and space
Maxwell and the constancy of the speed of light
Forces on a charge or current
Lorentz transformations
A.2
The two postulates of special relativity
Clock synchronization
The Lorentz transformations
Velocity addition
Invariant quantities (spacetime interval, proper time, proper length and rest mass)
Time dilation
Length contraction
The muon decay experiment
Spacetime diagrams
Worldlines
The twin paradox
I think he has a point. We live in a technical world and it's getting more technical faster and faster. So it's important to do these to at least keep in touch. This doesn't apply to non-scientific areas where the dependence and rate of progress of our society doesn't change significantly
U cant b more right. I’m currently a Yr 11 student in Aus. & chose physics as 1 of my electives. For the first yr we study Newtonian physics while in year 12 we do special relativity the cosmos etc.The problem is everything we learn now has been around for quite some time while the stuff we learn little of is what we will need to know of the most, and is essential in future years as technology and physics progress.We are 2 fixed in the classical world as opposed to the one we are evolving into.
I would just like to notice something, as far as I can tell, he is looking at his AS book (basing on the content) - the book from 1st year of A-level. During 2nd year (A2) we are covering other topics, such as particle physics. Even though I have to agree that syllabus doesn't include enough quantum theory or relativity.
There is another thing I consider to be a problem, which is the composition of exams, year by year nearly neglecting the maths, replacing it with written questions...
Awesome, I love all of these videos, gave me more motivation to study even harder. Thanks Brady please post more!!
great question at the end!!!
In Advanced Placement physics in highschool in the US, the syllabus was pretty much the same as it was for him. We did photoelectric effect for a month or so with a lab, and we watched a video that explained uncertainty in terms of basic Fourier theory.
I think it's hard to introduce quantum theory without any knowledge of linear algebra and accommodating those who haven't taken calculus yet. I'd like to see some Minkowski diagrams though.
If these guys gave lectures in my country, I'd definitely consider changing my degree from math to physics :D
AQA Physics A, there's a bit of algebra and a small amount of exponential stuff now I'm doing A2, but it's nothing that the people in my group who haven't done maths haven't picked up within a double lesson (1 hour 40 mins) with the lesson going at the usual pace.
Yea I have done High Level IB maths then come to university (Doing a masters in Mechanical Engineering at Cardiff University) and its all stuff ive already done. I sit in the lecture wondering why on earth I'm here then theres all these peope from the A-levels that have done none of this before and its just mindboggling.
From the aspect of a student just finishing a high school physics course, I find that all that has been said is correct, their is a smaller requirement for maths than of remembering facts. However in my school in Australia we just spent a term ( 8-12 weeks ) on reletivity and light. And throughout the entire course their were approximatly 30% of Test marks were math, while all other marks were from knowledge and understanding concepts. and as a sidenote, special rel was the highest physicscoverd
10 years ago we did do some relativity and quantum mechanics. We also learnt about quarks, wave particle duality, slit experiments and particle interactions via Feynman diagrams. So it looks like things might have regressed; /
I agree with everything said here, Dr Padilla. Even in IB, and not just A-levels, my entire class would complain in SL Physcis about the Maths in the course. Our HL Mathematics class was only 10 people accross the entire year...
I really enjoy relativity in statistics and calculus.. I know some of the basics of physics (I find it helps around in game development when creating a more realistic environment with stuff like illumination and the Inverse Quadratic Function) a lot of it, is fantastic and does relate to real-life.
I was 'scared' of maths for many years. It's only since I've matured mentally and philosophically that I've appreciated that maths is the language of the universe; that it explains everything that works and the way it works, and it's taught terribly to adolescents. I'm 29 and only now am I realising how important mathematics is, so much so that I've quit my job and am concentrating on studying maths/physics/engineering because they're always on my mind; they're the mechanics of existence...
I think what Tony was trying to say, but it did not quite come across because of the lengthyness of the interview i suppose, ss that it ultimately is about conciousness raising. An understanding of how the world you live in actually work, is a part of the process of conciousness raising.
In my own opinion, if a society were to gain a broader view of the world surrounding us, than it currently has, it would "raise the entire floor" of the society, in many different areas. Morally, economicly etc
First I have a PhDs in chemical engineering and my first degree was in physics. I am not scared of Maths. I understand why tony is so frustrated by the level of students Maths level nowadays. However I do not agree with his arguments about why everyone should know a bit of physics or advanced Maths. Similarly do all of us need to learn Dutch, Chinese, Egyptian... Live is short. We choose what are most important and interested for us to learn.
Also I do enjoy learn from RUclips. Thanks Brady. When go to a conference, I listen to the speakers. I found it is much easier to grab the concepts than reading the paper they published. As many authors' first language is not English, they may not exactly mean what they written.
its pretty extreme in the US too, I honestly didnt learn a damn thing in highschool. I learned everything i now know in college. I have a feeling that most western societies are going to have to start thinking differently about how we teach. Math especially needs to be rethought, all of modern society rides on the carrying on the torch of deep understanding of maths to future generations
Really great interview
I've got an answer for Brady's question @ 11:28
Because people vote. How can anyone hope to make informed decisions on important matters which rest upon a proper understanding of physics. Important matters like funding for further study, education, creating sustainable energies, investing in future technologies, etc.
I like Tony's passion in this video. Brady can be fairly disarming (in a good way) when he asks his interview subjects to justify their opinions. I thought Tony fielded the challenge well at the end. A passing knowledge of physics and math should be as valuable to us as a knowledge of Shakespeare or art history or anything else. Why know anything about Shakespeare? The answer to that answers the same question about physics. I now wish I knew more about both.
We did a lot of particle physics at AS physics as well as some quantum phenomena. In a2 it's a lot of basic old stuff but also some special rel for some students
Like... how are people disliking this. what were they thinking. What did they expect?
asking that question on a video with 1000:7 ratio...
I'll say one thing I dislike a lot: the low audio level is pretty awful.
Not every dislike is "I hate the content" or "I disagree".
I think I understand what this fella means near the end, about living in an enlightened society. There's a 'disproportionate' effect between what kids and young adults learn about Shakespeare and what they learn about quantum theory and relativity. I wonder if there's any other subjects with this kind of 'disproportionate' level of study.
At school I didn't get to do any modern physics, not sure if it's because I'm in queensland and the curriculum is different to the other states or if it was just my school. Lucky we have the internet
The thing is, I'm studying A Level Physics at the moment, and the general student consensus is that things like quantum theory and relativity are by far the most interesting and engaging parts of the syllabus, whilst the old, dry topics from 200, 300 years ago are what turn people off. Increasing the amount of modern, relevant physics is only going to get more people interested in physics.
I think while the standard maths a level isn't all that great in preparing you for under grad theoretical physics or maths, most further maths syllabus I'd say are decent at introducing heavily used maths in a first course in quantum theory or relativity. However most university undergrad physics courses don't require further maths as a level to do which I think is the problem. The education is there, but people have the option to evade it and many of them do just that.
Before taking about the lack of relativity or quantum theory in A level physics I think we need to stress the complete absence of calculus from a level physics first. I mean forget what I said about further maths in the last paragraph, people seem to think you can take physics at uni without doing any maths at all in a level which is akin to doing English literature without being able to read!
I'm not sure how deep it should really go so as not to just completely confuse people but I do agree with some of the points being made about demystifying it so it isn't seen like some fuzzy thing that doesn't affect the real world. Why not do some basic stuff regarding relativity and QM perhaps by relating it to things that are part of peoples lives, like investigating time dilation using the model of the GPS system or talking about the effects of quantum uncertainty on the transistor which is getting increasingly relevant as we keep trying to make the things ever smaller with ever fewer dopant atoms contained in each.
I applaude you for being able to catch him saying that, I totally could not make any sense from what he said. My mistake.
"Without maths we might as well just live in a cave"
Excellent!
actually in my state special relativity is optional. you choose between that, more electronics or materials. we do do a bit of quantum theory but it's pretty much the same as tony described.
That's why we have videos like sixty symbols, minutephysics, cpg grey, veritasium etc. These videos explain lots of science without those 'scary' details, and eventually as people are more exposed to it, they get into the details. This, I think is what formal schooling cannot provide.
Actualy. At least if you take AP (advanced placement) or running start (attending community college for high school) you do learn some of these. I cant speak for running start too much or AP physics, as they don't offer it at my school. But in my AP chemistry class our first couple of chapter we have gone over has been Physics based. Such as quantum theory, the photoelectric effect, kinetic molecular theory and such. So the US is behind, but we are still better than one would think.
My kid is 7 and has a basic grasp of relativity, multi dimensional thinking and quantum mechanics. Thank you Dr. Who for introducing it. I kid you not.
Can he do the math? Of course not. But having your brain around the basics this early helps when the math does pop up.
Thats odd I did AQA and we had ALOT more maths in it :S I think because our teacher was a maths one he crossed the two over alot more because we all also did both subjects. He even implemented differentiation and integration.
I am just repeating what one of the physicists that Brady was interviewing said in one of his videos. Not all physicists are great mathematicians, but they have to be good at the math that their job requires.
I could have sworn I caught a glimpse of some Feynman diagrams right at the end of Tony's notebook. You weren't seeing things, Brady!
I think the idea Brady, is that though people may not know how to white balance your camera, it is fair to assume that you would think it is an overall positive if people enjoy cameras and the artform of videography and photography. Though you wouldn't expect me to be a ninja with a camera if I was a physicist, you would hope that i could enjoy taking pictures of my family and all that just for the good hearted nature. I guess people should just enjoy the reality and good hearted nature of PHYS
I'm a physics major at a university, and I wish my high school physics had just a little bit of calculus. And I especially wish there was more recent stuff than the "a ball is rolling down an inclined plane at 30 degrees....".
I think they should offer a further physics A-level, but having done physics a-level recently I did do special relativity and did touch on quantum physics.
I think the main issue with science education (in the UK) is that the expectations are not high enough at GCSE - its far to easy. Then, when people go on to study science at college there is a huge leap between the level of knowledge needed. This isn't fair on the students. I think the level of teaching at secondary schools need to improve, we need to expect more of people taking GCSEs and make the exams harded (e.g getting rid of multiple choice questions).
I SO agree with the thought of the educated citizen... people should know about many things, including at least an overview about modern physics.
I'm from Germany, and we did not cover many modern aspects of physics at all. I'm now in engineering, where it doesn't matter really. But as I'm interested in it, I try to understand at least the broad picture.
With this stagnant levels of knowledge, we'll never have the enterprise :(
You will go far.
here in holland we only get classical mechanics.but for maths we do get calculus and vector analiysis
This video made me appreciate my grade 12 physics teach a lot more.
As I was going through senior year high school the textbooks were just starting to introduce quantum mechanics and relativity. the math was highly simplistic but, at least it wasn't just the Bohr model of the atom...
Just to add some debate to this, surely learning all the basics and the "old" stuff is useful to get the basics of physics. Even learning Quantum Theory in my first year of University (I'm in 4th year now), there was a lot of basic background which leads into the more complex stuff. At A level we were told we should take A Level Maths, even though there was little maths in the Physics course, but I do remember some basic calculus. There should be more "old" stuff at GCSE to lead into new stuff
In New Zealand I think you either had to or it as strongly recommended to take calculus when you took the last level of Physics in high School, but since I've left the system has changed slightly, so it could be different now...
I love the 2:36 when he thinks the red draws are feynam diagrams of particles and the other guy just completely denies it with hesitation. A little harsh may i say.
Well my friend , it is a fact that nowadays all over the world math are taught either as souless recipes that are only for blind use or like mathematicians learn them full of axioms with fancy confusing symbols and no straightforward examples of their use or their origin(like what was the need that time for this theory to arise , what problem solved or were trying to solve ) . On the other hand we have internet which means that we dont't have to be completly dependent on a school/univercity .
The old stuff is pretty important in engineering. At least for the undergraduate material.
Tell us more about the Nobel Prize "schrodinger's cat"! That sounds really cool!
well one problem with math classrooms is that they move on even if not all the students have grasped the content taught.The reason people go to khan academy and other similar sites is because they can learn things at their own pace.So the problem is inherently with the system , cause it doesn't allow for teachers to spend extra time on certain topics that maybe some children haven not yet fully understood.What khan academy has done is thoroughly beneficial so don't say it like it's bad.
It is easy to agree with Tony's point's (and the other guy's too) but in practice it means that something else has to go, unless we make the whole syllabus bigger.
He was flicking through his notes telling us it was all old and went past a page with electric circuits on it. So do we leave out electricity just because it is old? It's barely covered in any case.
I gather a lot of optics got dropped and I think it would interesting start the conversation at the other end, ie what can be dropped?
This reminded me of the movie K-Pax where he asks the alien guy how he knows all this "complicated science stuff" and he says where he comes from it's just common knowledge... Seems like the physics that is being taught early on that we've known about for hundreds of years at this point should be common knowledge to us, the same way everyone knows the Earth orbits the Sun.
A major flaw in his argument is assuming everyone studying physics at high school progresses onto pure physics. The reality is in the numbers, Far more people go on to engineering and other applied science fields than those that become theoretical physicists. So in this regard it would be unfair to skew the curriculum towards the esoteric at the cost of sound fundamentals.
Actually, the point is not that "It's not strange", in fact it is, but the thing is that although it's strange we fully understand what's strange about it and it's not too hard to understand what is strange about it. I mean hell the way some angler fish reproduce is weird too (bad analogy, I know!) But it doesn't mean we shouldn't teach them!
I'm only just ending AS and I've done way more than he seems to think. Feynmann diagrams, all of the photoelectric effect and we've done a little relativity but it's mostly A2.
I think you need to realise that A level physics can't cover particle physics or quantum or relativity because it's so lacking in any maths - you only get a superficial treatment, a largely qualitative treatment and you don't actually get much of a clue about what modern physics is. I'm just going in to my third year now so i can confirm these guy's views on this, A level really doesn't do the job in preparing you for university, or inspiring people to learn more about physics.
But then there is just so much time to use for doing maths and physics in school. I kind of oppose Tonys view in the video and would rather use the time in school for a more deep insight on classical physics, including the mathematical foundation for treating more complex problems. You can have pretty challenging problems in thermodynamics, electrodynamics or just classical mechanics.
If you instead extend the spectrum of topics too far, at some point you HAVE to cut the maths and at that point you are basically just give a description of contents of physics and effectively learn nothing. I think some solid understanding of calculus and linear algebra and their application in solving some more general problems is going to prepare you a lot better for university physics than just being told stuff about spacetime curvature in words, since there is no way you can actually find the time to get any deeper than that in school.
Sure, you can be told about special relativity and do some calculations after being given the formulae, but that's about it. And then there is quantum theory. What can you really do in the given amount of time (without cutting short on the maths and other topics) that goes beyond the photoelectric effect and maybe talking about double slit experiments? And from my understanding, that's the extent to which those topics are being covered anyway. But solving schroedinger's equation and actually pulling some knowledge out of it? How are you going to do that in school? And that is basically the entry level, right?
If you know the basic rules of differentiation implicit differentiation is quite easy.
I've never done A level physics myslef but I am doing advanced higher (which I think is roughly the same level). We do some photo electric effect and some Special Relativity in the level below (higher) and gloss over stuff like Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle and General Relativity at AH. Seeing that this video is fairly old, this may be because the system has been updated. Also, maths should be taught much differently, you don't start to look at nice mathematical theories and proofs until Advanced Higher, and even then there isn't much.
I'd be surprised if general relativity is looked at in AH, do you mean special relativity?
If you think that it's bad in the UK, my Physics and Chemistry classes in High School in the US had no math. Worse, Physics only covered Newtonian Physics. I had to read up on quantum physics and relativity on my own.
they should teach all 3 branches of physics, newtonian, quantum and relativistic.
but quantum theory and relativity should be in ALL schools just in slightly simplified mathematical terms.
for physics students though, all 3 subjects should be explored to the max, full math.
I like these arguments a lot, and I agree that they (the branches of physics) should be well known to everyone at least on a basic level. Having and being within a culture that frowns upon that though is quite problematic, and so it is culture that should change seeing how physics cannot and should not.
Yes, the "fear of math" in the UK is pretty extreme. The fact that you can take A-Level physics without taking a-level math says a lot about how little math is valued.
But even without that, the actual way that math is taught today (and this is not UK specific) is pretty horrible and makes it very hard to actually find math interesting.
Dropped out of education at 17, now at 30 reteaching myself the fundamentals. In my humble opinion you spend your GCSE/A level ages (which are so critical) being crammed full of answers. I now know the key is not the answer, in fact that is almost irrelevant. The key is asking the right questions........
+David Hanley I'm 30 and also teaching myself, my schooling was little to none. It's a shame being taught things cost so much
David Hanley its not irrelevant, knowing answers; having knowledge helps you expand your knowledge. Never disregard it all, but asking the correct questions and knowing where too look are much more fundamental.
it's diffrent and more in depth here in germany...
Can Tony do a video explaining more examples of Quantum theory and Relativity in everyday life? A bit more detail for those of us who are interested, but not scientists or mathematicians. :)
that would work if the kids were there for the school. but if you have been to a school most of the kids there want to hangout with their friends or they just wait till they can go home.
That is true unfortunately, but for those who do value it there is calculus and advanced calculus based physics in US high schools.
In the UK high school kids learn Quantum Theory but not Special Relativity. In Australia kids learn Special Relativity but not Quantum Theory. Here in America kids learn neither. Now you tell me who's the furthest behind.
they still have to teach newtonian physics first, because all civil engineering and architecture is done with newtonian science.
but they still should also teach quantum theory and relativity, atleast in simplified terms so people know what it's about
but newtonian physics is at the core of civilization, since it is very accurate at normal size and speed scales.
i agree 100%.
/rant Most of my high school physics is the same thing over and over. THAT is what made it boring for me. i go to math and learn functions, then physics is newton, history is WWII. next year isn't MORE, its the same thing AGAIN. feels like I'm just being beaten over the head, but they wont give me the next part. it's like catching the first 30min of a movie over and over, after the second time you lose interest if you can't see the whole thing. /endrant
I don't know if the problem is the same accross countries, but what I (being a Norwegian high school student) have noticed is that you are taught math to know it, not to understand it. There is a big difference between the two, and untill you actually understand it, math WILL be boring.
I agree with Tony, I think the whole paradigm of calling 'Quantum' some weird thing that's nothing to do with the way to world is, and is too hard to understand by definition needs to change. The "Weirdness" of QM feels more like a meme that's just passed down now, even by teachers. Before they even introduce the topic they say its very strange...its not, it's simply how the universe works. We're taught to believe its strange, I was lucky to have read about it as a kid so I dont have that view.
We do little quantum mechanics at my highschool, a little bit of the photoelectric effect, something of the uncertainty principle, the quantum states... Not much, but something. No relativity so far. Though I would bet that if I were to ask what quantum mechanics is to any of my classmates, they wouldn't know how to answer. They just study to past the course and that's it, they forget. In 2 years, they are gonna remember nothing. Why is that? It's how nature works, what's more important?
Any recommended book on Mathematics for understanding topics like Tensors,Eigen values,Differential Equations in a bit of depth ??
Apostol's Calculus.