Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Theoretical physics choices.Follow

#1 Nov 06 2013 at 3:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Right. I need to make some decisions, and I can pretend you guys care about my life for a moment here.

Update time. I'm finishing up a degree in theoretical chemistry at the moment and trying to get into one of the most competitive theoretical physics graduate programmes in the world. So I need to show... something.

To that end, I've somehow managed to get myself registered for a programme wherein I'm allowed to take theoretical physics graduate credits at all Scottish universities via video conference, for free (doctoral training centres are overfunded and stuff). I got enrolled in one class this semester, somewhat against my will. And I'm apparently at the equivalent of a 4.0 GPA in this so far (as opposed to the 3.6ish of my undergrad to date).

So on Friday there's a meeting that I've been invited to at my home university, and I kind of want to decide on the courses I should take next semester. Most of this is only marginally useful to me as most of the classes that are directly related to what I want to (and can) do are not being taught next semester. I'm thinking I can probably cope with 2, aiming for a high grade in one of them. It might also make my PhD a bit less time-consuming (hah!)

I've picked out the following:
Quantum Information (i.e. quantum computing for physicists)
The Standard Model (relativistic quantum stuff; this might be useful as I wanted to get some relativity related project done in grad school eventually)
Modern Quantum Field Theory (way theoretical stuff, essentially deriving the aforementioned standard model; this actually seems pretty useful in general)
Flavour Physics (quarks, but no actual tasty things)
Quarks and Hadron Spectroscopy (it seems to be about a qualitative view on exotic particles and stuff)

Vote on 1, discuss how this is totally inappropriate and I'm just bragging, and I'll probably ignore all this and go for quantum information anyway because it's cool.

Poll something.

Which course is the least ridiculous?
Quantum Information :4 (18.2%)
The Standard Model :3 (13.6%)
Modern QFT :4 (18.2%)
Flavour Physics :0 (0.0%)
Quarks and Hadron Spectroscopy:6 (27.3%)
Nixnot, shower, now also in Scottish.:5 (22.7%)
Total:22


Also, surprisingly, theoretical physicists like keeping chemists around. It's nice. Everyone else just seems to like mathematicians. Smiley: mad
#2 Nov 06 2013 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Choice 2 or 3, because the less interesting stuff is usually the classes you need to make sense out of the other ones. Not that it all isn't gibberish voodoo or anything, of course.

Also, grats on getting to be smarter for free! Smiley: grin

Smiley: yippee
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#3 Nov 06 2013 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
I thought relativity and quantum mechanics were as yet irreconcilable?
#4 Nov 06 2013 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
I don't understand any of this so I voted for NixNot in the hope that he'll come back.
#5 Nov 06 2013 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
He is a Flavour.
#6 Nov 06 2013 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Aripyanfar wrote:
I thought relativity and quantum mechanics were as yet irreconcilable?


Current QFT includes special relativity. Actually, if I get the PhD supervisor I want I'll have the chance to implement relativistic terms in his quantum mechanics code

You're thinking of general relativity (space time bending things). There's no quantum gravity (yet).
#7 Nov 06 2013 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Quarks and Leptons gets my vote!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#8 Nov 06 2013 at 5:38 PM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
Don't worry, Big Bang Theory will be cancelled soon enough and this whole fad will pass.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#9 Nov 06 2013 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
Smart people..so smart.

I voted for Q&H.
____________________________
Sandinmyeye | |Tsukaremashi*a |
#10 Nov 07 2013 at 1:49 AM Rating: Good
Iamadam wrote:
Don't worry, Big Bang Theory will be cancelled soon enough and this whole fad will pass.


This is funny because my university actually cancelled the forensics track of my degree because CSI is not a good motivator to produce decent forensic scientists. Smiley: lol

TV inspired careers are problematic.
#11 Nov 07 2013 at 1:51 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,393 posts
I picked Quarks because that stuff really interests me(because incredibly, incredibly tiny theoretical things are interesting), but sadly, I can't even begin to understand theoretical physics, so I'd like to see more people go into fields where they might be able to discover things that makes those theoretical things more tangible, plausible, and understandable to those of us who are above layman's terms, but well below the level necessary to understand theoretical physics.

It's also possible that the hardcore Trekkie in me likes the word "quark"

Edited, Nov 7th 2013 2:51am by Driftwood
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#12 Nov 07 2013 at 3:19 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I vote Flavour Physics so we can finally find out how an eight foot tall pitcher of sentient sugar water can decimate a brick wall like it was tissue paper.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#13 Nov 07 2013 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I always picked the programs with the best field trips.

Flavour physics sounds like you might get to taste test stuff. That'd be cool.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#14 Nov 07 2013 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
Driftwood wrote:
I picked Quarks because that stuff really interests me(because incredibly, incredibly tiny theoretical things are interesting), but sadly, I can't even begin to understand theoretical physics, so I'd like to see more people go into fields where they might be able to discover things that makes those theoretical things more tangible, plausible, and understandable to those of us who are above layman's terms, but well below the level necessary to understand theoretical physics.

It's also possible that the hardcore Trekkie in me likes the word "quark"


Depending on whether you have any knowledge about quarks/QCD, I wrote up a thing about the nuclear force, pions and colour charge 2 months or so ago and I could just C&P that here. I'd say of all of quantum field theory this stuff is what's easiest to explain without going into huge amounts of mathematics, but what I wrote is really qualitative simply because I've got a chemistry background and half my particle physics knowledge comes from way back when I was 10 or 11.

Elinda wrote:
I always picked the programs with the best field trips.

Flavour physics sounds like you might get to taste test stuff. That'd be cool.


No field trips because the full courses are all taught via video conference as they're at various different universities. There are short courses that are field trips to the other unis, but I usually can't timetable 3 days in Glasgow without missing classes that actually count toward my undergrad GPA. Smiley: frown

Unfortunately, flavour in physics is a weird way of saying "type of quark" rather than actual flavour. Well, I think it's cool. But there's nothing I could taste in that class, apart from the cheap vending machine cappuccino I might bring into the conference room.
#15 Nov 07 2013 at 4:35 PM Rating: Decent
someproteinguy wrote:
Choice 2 or 3, because the less interesting stuff is usually the classes you need to make sense out of the other ones


I voted standard model for this reason. I'm no physicist, but it seems that if I were, I'd want to fully understand the most common model in use today before branching out into the more theoretical / exotic stuff.
#16 Nov 07 2013 at 5:58 PM Rating: Good
2 and 3 are actually really interesting. Not having learned the physics side of things fully is incredibly frustrating. In chemistry, we always get little scraps of important stuff without even knowing what the corresponding theory is actually about.

The Standard Model is the standard model of particle physics which involves all sorts of things. It's like all the exciting stuff in one course, I guess. I need to learn a lot more about photon physics, and I like quarks. It probably won't even touch on some of the particles I want/need to learn about.
#17 Nov 11 2013 at 12:55 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Q and H. New frontier stuff, it's where the money is going to be.
#18 Nov 11 2013 at 1:15 PM Rating: Good
I picked Quantum Information because that's the area where I really see all this quantum stuff going places.

Congrats on getting this far. I wanted to be a theoretical physicist when I was around 12 or so and lived that dream up until I turned 19 and realized I didn't like math all that much after all and was a lot happier writing sci-fi stuff and making it all up as I went along. Writing software spec and testing it rarely involves math beyond basic algebra so I'm a lot happier where I ended up.
#19 Nov 11 2013 at 2:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Catwho wrote:
I picked Quantum Information because that's the area where I really see all this quantum stuff going places.


It's funded, certainly. I think it's probably more funded than it deserves, but I want a clearer picture and it's always good to have options; chemical quantum computing is something that I think is a fairly practical route to get this realised and there is a market for people who get both sides, so it's a decent backup plan. Plus, I really want to know what its limitations are theoretically because I understand just enough to get that it's a bit overhyped. Nonetheless, it seems like the job market there is a lot better than for density functional theory which is what I really want to do. Probably partly because people keep throwing money at the quantum information folks. Smiley: tongue

I wanted to be a theoretical physicist when I was around 12, too. Then I didn't get into the physics course I needed in high school, so I ended up doing a theoretical chemistry degree. Turns out it's the same thing, but having the chemistry knowledge makes me competitive on the job market in unexpected ways. I actually get annoyed because a chemistry degree means we don't learn the mathematics we need. If I don't get my first choice, I'll probably go to maths grad school just to get that bit of extra grounding. Smiley: lol




Also, random related PSA: With Peter Higgs getting a Nobel Prize and the Scottish physics departments trying to draw in non-physicist academics as well as the general public, this is happening starting February. And it's free. And so awesome.
#20 Nov 13 2013 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Kalivha wrote:
Iamadam wrote:
Don't worry, Big Bang Theory will be cancelled soon enough and this whole fad will pass.


This is funny because my university actually cancelled the forensics track of my degree because CSI is not a good motivator to produce decent forensic scientists. Smiley: lol

TV inspired careers are problematic.


What, it's not reasonable to have a doctoral-level education in chemistry, physics, biology, and anatomy as well as have the training of a detective and lawyer, AND have access to science toys that (when they even exist) are absurdly expensive and no one has access to, AND be able to completely ignore due process?

I sometimes enjoy science!**** shows. But it's been a long time since one like CSI has been interesting to me. I can only suspend my disbelief so much.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#21 Nov 13 2013 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Kalivha wrote:
Iamadam wrote:
Don't worry, Big Bang Theory will be cancelled soon enough and this whole fad will pass.


This is funny because my university actually cancelled the forensics track of my degree because CSI is not a good motivator to produce decent forensic scientists. Smiley: lol

TV inspired careers are problematic.


What, it's not reasonable to have a doctoral-level education in chemistry, physics, biology, and anatomy as well as have the training of a detective and lawyer, AND have access to science toys that (when they even exist) are absurdly expensive and no one has access to, AND be able to completely ignore due process?

I sometimes enjoy science!**** shows. But it's been a long time since one like CSI has been interesting to me. I can only suspend my disbelief so much.
#22 Nov 13 2013 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
I was watching Buffy (hells yeah) the other day and they were reviewing a security tape on a VCR, and Cordelia told Xander to stop and zoom in. And he mocked her. And all was right in the world.

I wish they didn't send Cordelia to Angel. And then kill her off. Smiley: frown
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#23 Nov 13 2013 at 2:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
AND have access to science toys that (when they even exist) are absurdly expensive and no one has access to
I'd have to say this is one of my pet peeves as well. Those pseudo-science shows are wonderful for creating unrealistic expectations for a particular instrument even within the scientific community.

Mass spectrometers can't save your #$%^ty sample! Smiley: motz

Smiley: mad
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#24 Nov 13 2013 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
What, it's not reasonable to have a doctoral-level education in chemistry, physics, biology, and anatomy as well as have the training of a detective and lawyer, AND have access to science toys that (when they even exist) are absurdly expensive and no one has access to, AND be able to completely ignore due process?


Well, I mean... to do a biology postdoc at Oxford without feeling extremely inadequate you apparently need a PhD in mathematics, if my friend is to be believed. The second PhD will probably not remove much of the inadequacy.

It's like that a lot. I mean, my supervisor is of the opinion that what your degree is doesn't matter at all, and I find myself somewhat agreeing with that. I think it matters a bit. Opens doors or whatever. It doesn't seem to matter in research because you could go in just having learned generic research methods and would only have to learn marginally more new stuff. Because there's always more knowledge, or whatever.
#25 Nov 13 2013 at 6:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Iamadam wrote:
Don't worry, Big Bang Theory will be cancelled soon enough and this whole fad will pass.



...Bazinga!
#26 Nov 15 2013 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Kalivha wrote:
I mean, my supervisor is of the opinion that what your degree is doesn't matter at all, and I find myself somewhat agreeing with that. I think it matters a bit. Opens doors or whatever. It doesn't seem to matter in research because you could go in just having learned generic research methods and would only have to learn marginally more new stuff. Because there's always more knowledge, or whatever.
I'll somewhat agree with that too. The amount of cross-talk between the different fields these days is pretty impressive. You get your degree and then spend you post-doc trying to learn another field to somewhat round out your experience. Something in the realm of Physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, computer science, business and writing. At that point you should be into your 50s an finally prepared to start a career, assuming of course your 25 year old biochemistry degree is still worth the paper it's printed on by that point. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 253 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (253)