<p>boneh3ad - I never indicated that you will become proficient at calculus based physics by taking a non-calculus based physics course. Clearly you missing my point. The point here is that by having a basic understanding of physics concepts from a competent teacher a then a student should be in a good position to master calculus based physics especially after that student has taken calculus. To my knowledege, Cornell does not give credit for Physics B based on the criteria you described.</p>
<p>You guys have more physics and know more than I do, but certainly I have to disagree with most of the negative views about B at this point. I shouldn’t say disagree, but from my perspective. I can’t really agree with some of the views.</p>
<hr>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, first of all AP is not offer in every high school. Some schools doesn’t offer both B and C. Some offer C and not B. My high school only offers B and so our AP teachers (two of them) are nice enough to tutor students if they are decide to take both B and C (well C is just an additional exam packet).</p>
<p>I and many of my classmates didn’t know the difference between B and C until we were in the class. This explains why some people took B in high school, and thought they could exemplify themselves from calc-based physics 1 even if they were interested in science / engineering concentration.</p>
<p>Clearly OP is not a high school student now. He is asking whether B book will help him. He meant preparation. We all said B is not calculus-based, and it wouldn’t be enough. Note that he is preparing for the class.</p>
<hr>
<p>
I totally disagree. Physics B and C are still physics. The difference is the language. Physics B is non-calculus so all the definitions are more plain English and algebraic. There is no calculus (sometime authors might throw in one or two). This seems more “natural” to high school students.</p>
<p>Physics C is more calculus-based. So their definitions are more in calculus, similar to what you would see in a college level calculus-based physics textbook. To help students, very often pre books put more words than necessary to help students better understand the contents. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, physics B and C are still physics. Knowing formulas is not enough. Formulas are there to evaluate a numerical answer. Definitions and theorems are there to help us choose the best evaluation formulas that we should apply. For example, it would be really difficult to evaluate and analyze an object that moves in a curve path if you do not know about potential energy, kinetic energy, and any one of the energy theorems. i.e. we see the importance of knowing when, and how to apply theorems. You can approximate using simple 2-D motions, but who the hell would do that?</p>
<p>As you begin to cover more physics 1 topics, you soon to realize that problems can get really nasty if different topics are involved in one problems.</p>
<p>I can’t say I had done this sort of problem in B because I left after one semester. But certainly it is possible. Can we solve the same motion problem without know calculus? YES. </p>
<p>Why? Because we know the theorems and we know how to analyze the problem properly.</p>
<hr>
<p>
</p>
<p>It varies from state to state, city to city, and district to district. In my high school we don’t cover fluid and theormo in regular high school physics. This is why I said B is high school physics + a few more topics and went a little bit in depth. Of course if the teachers are easy on the students I can’t really say much about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We said the same thing, but we treat concepts differently. Apparently I was confused by your “higher-level … low-level…” there. We don’t have a better word to differentiate concept and concept. </p>
<p>We both agree that B is a preparation for calculus-based, and that calculus is an essential tool in physics. I will also quote someone from physicsforums,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In fact, center of mass is covered in mutli-variable calculus. My professor would write pages of notes on the board as he showed us the proof and derivations using calculus, but I didn’t get center of mass and some other quantities until this summer (I am taking calc 3 right now).</p>
<p>While physics concepts and definitions are build using calculus, they can be describe in non-calculus ways. This is where I argue that B has its own value, and we cannot say it is not helpful for people who are first time, or for the sake of preparation in the summer. </p>
<p>While B does not stress calculus, it covers what is necessary for a student (particularly the high school students). The concepts are covered. They are not explained or shown in calculus. So students would not really know why this quantity or this expression has to look like this. </p>
<p>If you use calculus to show motion of a system of particles, the integral of sum of F external over t is the integral of M’s a<em>cm dt, which will give you M * deta v</em>cm, and eventually is the impulse, or the change in the momentum of the system (deta p).</p>
<p>Note that this can still be shown in B using ONLY algebra, but you have to know all the quantity yourself. Whereas as you taking integral and derivative, you may encounter familiar (or known) quantities. </p>
<p>When we look at calculus-based physics, its definitions and theorems become more apparent and clear to students. They can literally USE the definitions to come up with a valid expression for another quantity. </p>
<p>A simple illustration would be linear momentum. p = mv
There are only 5-6 steps in the analysis:</p>
<p>In a simple situation involving two particles, their interactions, according to Newton must have F12 = -F21
If we rewrite this we have m1a1 + m2a2 = 0, and using derivative we can have m1(dv1/dt) + m2(dv2/dt) = 0, and finally moving around we have d/dt(m1v1 + m2v2) = 0, and this said the derivative of this interaction (the sum of this - which is sum of the interaction force) is a constant because d/dt = 0. So for an isolated system particles is conserved, ideally.</p>
<p>What about the non-calculus? I will quote from the non-calculus textbook:
</p>
<p>So how do we find the similar “basic concepts”? Actually, like calculus-based textbook, students are required to think about the definition of momentum. What exactly is momentum? You have SI unit kg * m/s. What does this reminds us? It looks like kg * m/s^2 which is F = ma. Great. We see the connection between m and v in F = ma. If we happen to know that the tangent of a V-T graph is a (which is also covered in a AP B textbook), it is valid to assume there IS a relationship established b/w ma and mv. </p>
<p>Thus, if we give more thoughts about it, one could show that p = mv from F = ma. </p>
<p>Calculus-based textbook shows us how, and add that to the definition, only. The same concept is covered in B!
This is why we say calculus-based definitions are fundamentals because it is more likely that each definition will be explained in greater details. This is why we think B is useless, because it just tells you the DEFINITION of linear momentum, and its evaluation forum p = mv without really explaining how and why, unless your teacher really cares about the students and actually know how to teach. My high school AP teachers are really good. One was a professor @ CC, and the other one used to be an engineer. </p>
<hr>
<p>In fact, non-calculus college textbooks are generally used in B. However, if you compare the problems in those textbooks to the calculus-based college textbooks, they are about the same. Most of them are the same questions if they are written by the same authors. The only difference is how deep the concepts and definitions are being covered.</p>
<p>This is where boneh3ad and I would agree that the basic concepts of theorems, laws, and quantity like momentum are indeed covered in both non-calculus and calculus textbook. The calculus concepts in these theorems and quantities are not covered in B, indeed. </p>
<p>If OP wants to learn about physics, certainly B will not be a great source. It has limited offer. There are sites that offer great tutorials on calculus-based physics.</p>
<hr>
<p>Today’s physics education does not really ask students to apply calculus as much as in the past. My professor said this many times. Our school is very strong in physics, and our professor really cared about our students. The professor who give very difficult problems to his students and my professor both called the publisher and told them errors in the books. My professor is always solving problems. Every time I see him in the tutoring room, he is always looking at the textbook doing problems. Very few professors today would actually call up the publisher and get the book fixed.</p>
<p>My professor teaches at Cooper Union also. He said he gives very difficult problems to his Cooper students. He probably was right about that the other professor gives changelle problems to his students. He said he showed us calculus because he felt the same way as you, boneh3ad.</p>
<p>Unless you are a physics major, no student would stay in the class writing hours of proofs to finally come up to the right theorem. In fact, very few physics majors would do that unless your interest is in theoretical and research physics. </p>
<p>===</p>
<p>Conclusion:</p>
<p>Some people are very “natural” to physics, while some aren’t. Produ3894 and his son, maybe. I can’t say for sure. Similarity, some are more “natural” to sports, while some aren’t, for example, I am definitely horrible in sports. But I can run and jog for a long period of time, like Forest Gump. </p>
<p>Whether it’s B or C, we can’t be bias over one’s existence and value. OP might find B materials more helpful to start with, who knows? There are sites available to study physics at any time. MIT OCW is one. The link I provide is also extremely helpful in learning the concepts without purchasing a textbook. In fact, textbook is useless when I find that site.</p>
<p>[Physics</a> Study Guides](<a href=“http://iweb.tntech.edu/murdock/books.html]Physics”>http://iweb.tntech.edu/murdock/books.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, C is an entirely different test. B is one test, C is two separate tests, Mechanics and Electricity & Magnetism. You can take one or both. Both of them are completely separate tests from B.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t know the difference in high school even after I took the classes. I didn’t know the difference until I got to college. My high school offered both, but only an AP version of C. The other one was just a prerequisite for C. I never said that B was useless, I just said that if you want to learn calculus-based physics (as the OP seemed to be interested in), then B is not the way to go, nor will it ever be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet in this statement, you reinforce our exact reasoning as to why Physics B is more of a memorization course. Why, might I ask, is 1/2<em>a</em>t^2 + v0*t +x0 = x a true equation? Can you tell me without calculus? How does it relate to v? You simply can’t explain those sorts of things algebraically. It had to be done with calculus. In Physics B, you just have to memorize those equations instead of knowing where they come from and how they related to one another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. You can only solve the very basic motion problems without knowing calculus. What about a mass-spring-damper system, for example? Do that without calculus. I dare you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It can be shown… it cannot be explained. You can be given the equations in an algebra-based class; you cannot be given the basis for those equations. If you want to truly understand physics, you have to understand the basics.</p>
<p>Physics B is good for two things. It can give non-science/engineering students an overview of physics and how the world works without expecting them to go any farther, or it can give a future science/engineering student a rudimentary overview of the concepts. The only incredibly useful thing that a future engineer will learn from algebra-based physics is the problem-solving method. You could argue that this benefit is negligible for self-study for many students though, as there is no one there to force you to do the problems.</p>
<p>yes, cornell does give credit for ap physics B. but it has to be a 5 and with a calculus class.
[Cornell</a> Engineering : Advanced Placement Credit Table](<a href=“http://www.engineering.cornell.edu/student-services/academic-advising/academic-information/ap-credit/ap-credit-table.cfm]Cornell”>http://www.engineering.cornell.edu/student-services/academic-advising/academic-information/ap-credit/ap-credit-table.cfm)
it sort of surprised me at first too, since my high school did not offer physics C. but i could see the connection between physics and calculus. i took Calc AB before taking physics B, so i was able to understand the concepts better. just dont limit oneself to think in terms of the straightforward motions described in physics B. see the big picture.</p>
<p>
So why, then? Anyone care to concoct the derivations out of thin air without cheating?</p>
<p>What’s your point EngineerHead? If you are proficient in physics, you should be able to. That’s the point we’re trying to make. How can you really say you’ve mastered a material if you don’t even know why you do what you do? It isn’t so different in other subjects either. What do derivatives and integrals and limits really mean in calculus? What evidence do you have that orientals crossed the Bering Strait into North America? What the hell is the inflation and why does it occur? Why does acceleration derive from velocity which derives from displacement?</p>
<p>Look, you can learn physics by rote memorization. That’s fine, unless you’re going to be advancing to a more difficult course in physics. I will echo boneh3ad again; the fundamentals to physics are calculus based concepts. You can’t know why things happen without knowing the rate-of-change mathematical concepts (calculus 1) at the very least. By learning it “algebraically”, all you’re doing is memorizing equations. That’s just no good, anyone can memorize stuff, but how useful are you if you can’t really explain why those equations are true?</p>
<p>I must also disagree strongly with Cornell’s decision with these AP credits. Yeah it’s Cornell and yeah they’re ivy league so I probably have no place in saying this, but I think it’s flat out wrong. Physics B does not teach you physics in a calculus oriented way, and just because you’ve learned calculus doesn’t mean you can apply it to physics. I mean… it sounds completely absurd to me.</p>
<p>EDIT: Okay, so I decided not to just take your word for it and find out if what you’re saying is true since I found it so hard to believe. In fact, a 5 on Physics B will only get you out of PHYS 1112… which is algebra-based physics (not calculus-based).</p>
<p>I believe it worthy to be noted that even in calc-based physics, when you initially learn of the kinematics, they are not complemented with the calculus derivations until later into the course after you’ve entered other material and can then draw back.</p>
<p>I believe it also worthy to be noted that you’re not forced to learn the derivations for all the equations; some you do, some you don’t. Especially relative to the teacher, you might never (or you might always). I think for the most part, though, it’s not always, or near always for that.</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that Cornell is handing out calc-based physics credits for AP Physics B + calculus; I’d have to see this for myself.</p>
<p>They aren’t, I checked (in reference to the Cornell dispute).</p>
<p>And if we’re going to start getting into details then we can’t really argue anything. For the most part, calculus based physics classes are supposed to be learning how to derive formulas from the start. Obviously the more you learn, the more everything fits together since you have more ways to solve problems. You still use calculus in the beginning however.</p>