Register to reply

I need a job

by benk99nenm312
Tags: None
Share this thread:
chroot
#19
Apr11-09, 01:27 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,428
Exactly my point, Vanadium 50. Well said. I'm sometimes shocked at the sense of entitlement that kids can develop.

I've totally read some textbooks, you know, enough to realize that they're all wrong. I deserve a job doing physics, because, come on, I'm clearly so smart that I deserve one. Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie!

- Warren
benk99nenm312
#20
Apr11-09, 01:37 PM
P: 302
Quote Quote by chroot View Post
A field is a mathematical formalism that assigns a value (scalar, vector, or tensor) to every point in some space. An ether is a substance that fills space and has the mechanical properties necessary for light to propagate through it.

No, we don't "really know" what a particle is. We have mathematical models which predict the behavior of the particles. To some, that seems like an admission of failure, but it is not. We cannot ever have any "human experience" of what it means to be an electron -- the very concepts of "sight" and "touch" do not apply to them. The very best we can do is to develop a model which describes their behavior.

You have never taken a single physics class. How on earth do you think you are fit to judge the entire science as "poor?"

You are well on your way to becoming an arrogant, self-assured crackpot.

- Warren
Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality. “It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.” The vacuum is free of matter, but not free of field. The field creates a "condition in space.” This sounds a lot like an ether to me. An ether fills up space. It is always present...

In QFT, a photon is regarded as an excitation of the field. Without the field, there is no way that light could exist, or travel. In a similar way, an ether allows for the propagation of light through a vacuum. The ether just doesn’t explain how it allows for light to travel.

I think a field is a more sophisticated version of an ether. If you think otherwise, tell me why. But what is a field, besides numbers. Does a field exist in reality, because the last time I checked, numbers were an invention of man, not God.
benk99nenm312
#21
Apr11-09, 01:39 PM
P: 302
Quote Quote by Vanadium 50 View Post
Getting back to the original question, stubbornness, arrogance, and thinking entry-level work is somehow beneath you are not endearing traits to many employers. I'm a professional physicist, and when I was 16 I stuffed envelopes for a job. Thousands upon thousands of envelopes. After a couple years, they let me move to the factory where I made cardboard boxes for shipping, and finally worked my way up to a punch press.

I would suggest when communicating with prospective employers that you tone this down as much as you can.
I don't think that blue collar work is beneath anyone, including myself. I just wish I could do something else, so that's what I have been working at for a while now.
chroot
#22
Apr11-09, 01:42 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,428
Quote Quote by benk99nenm312 View Post
Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality.
Fields do not have any physical reality. No physicist ever said they did.
“It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.” The vacuum is free of matter, but not free of field. The field creates a "condition in space.” This sounds a lot like an ether to me. An ether fills up space. It is always present...
The ether, if it existed, would have been a tangible thing. Its wind would have been felt when moving through space. Fields, on the other hand, are just mathematical formalisms. If you wish to make up your own meanings for terms that already have well-defined meanings, speaking with you will be a waste of my time.
I think a field is a more sophisticated version of an ether. If you think otherwise, tell me why. But what is a field, besides numbers. Does a field exist in reality, because the last time I checked, numbers were an invention of man, not God.
No, fields do not exist in reality. Echo, echo, echo...

- Warren
Wellesley
#23
Apr11-09, 01:46 PM
P: 276
Quote Quote by Vanadium 50 View Post
Getting back to the original question, stubbornness, arrogance, and thinking entry-level work is somehow beneath you are not endearing traits to many employers. I'm a professional physicist, and when I was 16 I stuffed envelopes for a job. Thousands upon thousands of envelopes. After a couple years, they let me move to the factory where I made cardboard boxes for shipping, and finally worked my way up to a punch press.

I would suggest when communicating with prospective employers that you tone this down as much as you can.
I must have missed where the OP said "entry-level work" was beneath him.
Quote Quote by benk99nenm312;2156629....
I'm already pulling a job at Hy-Vee...
Searching on google, Hy-Vee is basically a grocery store.

Quote Quote by chroot View Post
As others have said, you'd be much more likely to find a job working with computers or business information technology, and there's a lot of useful stuff to learn there -- even though it's not as "glamorous" as being a physicist.

When I was 16, I worked for Time-Warner Cable in their administrative office. I mostly did daily chores involving database maintenance, but I also wrote some small programs and repaired some big computers in sites all across the state. It was a perfect job for my level of competence, and I was paid quite well. Maybe you could look into such a position in your area.

- Warren
I think he was just looking for a better job than he currently has, at a grocery store....
benk99nenm312
#24
Apr11-09, 01:46 PM
P: 302
Quote Quote by chroot View Post
Exactly my point, Vanadium 50. Well said. I'm sometimes shocked at the sense of entitlement that kids can develop.

I've totally read some textbooks, you know, enough to realize that they're all wrong. I deserve a job doing physics, because, come on, I'm clearly so smart that I deserve one. Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie!

- Warren
I think you've completely lost it. What gives you this impression of me? Have you never met somone who wanted a better job? I'm shocked at how childish a PF mentor is acting. Critisizing me like that... you honestly should look at your last post here. I don't want to be your enemy. I don't want to be your vision of an evil child. Clearly, you have the wrong impression of me.
benk99nenm312
#25
Apr11-09, 01:50 PM
P: 302
Quote Quote by chroot View Post
Fields do not have any physical reality. No physicist ever said they did.

The ether, if it existed, would have been a tangible thing. Its wind would have been felt when moving through space. Fields, on the other hand, are just mathematical formalisms. If you wish to make up your own meanings for terms that already have well-defined meanings, speaking with you will be a waste of my time.

No, fields do not exist in reality. Echo, echo, echo...

- Warren
I found this information on fields by googling them. I know you don't agree with this, but it's not the first time I've heard that information before, so I'm surprised to here that it's wrong.
chroot
#26
Apr11-09, 01:52 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,428
What gives me that impression of you?

Here are the facts:

1) You've never taken any physics classes, and haven't yet reached calculus.
2) You think you know enough about physics to declare it wrong.
3) You think you know enough about physics to deserve a paying job doing it.

Your assertions in this thread are laughable, benk99nenm312. Unfortunately, you won't just take the lumps and move on with your life -- you want to keep arguing. You've been given several good suggestions on ways to get a better job, a job that will educate and empower you, at a level that's actually appropriate for your skills. What more do you want from us?

- Warren
chroot
#27
Apr11-09, 01:53 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,428
Quote Quote by benk99nenm312 View Post
I found this information on fields by googling them. I know you don't agree with this, but it's not the first time I've heard that information before, so I'm surprised to here that it's wrong.
Right, because all serious professional physicists learned about physics via Google.

- Warren
benk99nenm312
#28
Apr11-09, 01:56 PM
P: 302
Quote Quote by chroot View Post
What gives me that impression of you?

Here are the facts:

1) You've never taken any physics classes, and haven't yet reached calculus.
2) You think you know enough about physics to declare it wrong.
3) You think you know enough about physics to deserve a paying job doing it.

Your assertions in this thread are laughable, benk99nenm312. Unfortunately, you won't just take the lumps and move on with your life -- you want to keep arguing. You've been given several good suggestions on ways to get a better job, a job that will educate and empower you, at a level that's actually appropriate for your skills. What more do you want from us?

- Warren
I guess I have no more use for you.
Choppy
#29
Apr11-09, 02:29 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 2,679
Getting back to the original question I'm not sure of anything you could do at your age directly involving physics without any certified competance. One option might be working in a lab if there are any universities nearby. This is unlikely to pay well (and in fact it is more likely to be a volunteer position).

Another idea might be to start your own business. I have no idea what marketable skills you have, but if you do a self-assessment there's probably something there. A couple years ago my wife bought a kit and built her own kayak, which is easily worth about twice the price of the kit - and she wasn't particularly skilled in workworking. Something like that could easily be turned into a business and it would develop some hands-on skills. At a friend's wedding the videographers were a couple of engineering undergrads who taped weddings on weekends and they got paid very well for it. Man... if I had it to do over again...
nbo10
#30
Apr11-09, 03:17 PM
P: 415
Quote Quote by chroot View Post
Right, because all serious professional physicists learned about physics via Google.

- Warren
hahahahaha, I'm gonna have to remember this quote.
aerospaceut10
#31
Apr11-09, 04:26 PM
P: 139
Quote Quote by benk99nenm312 View Post
I think you've completely lost it. What gives you this impression of me? Have you never met somone who wanted a better job? I'm shocked at how childish a PF mentor is acting. Critisizing me like that... you honestly should look at your last post here. I don't want to be your enemy. I don't want to be your vision of an evil child. Clearly, you have the wrong impression of me.


Clearly, you aren't aware of your arrogant attitude you are portraying with the posts you've made.


You seriously need to learn how to be more humble and accept the fact that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.
aerospaceut10
#32
Apr11-09, 04:31 PM
P: 139
Quote Quote by benk99nenm312 View Post
I have no option at the time being to take any classes. Next year, I have my first physics class. I have no other way to learn.

I agree with you on the knowledge part. What I have noticed is that sometimes the current knowledge is full of fallacies. I have not met one person on this earth that can tell me the difference between a field and an ether. We have some fancy math in QFT that gives us more meaning to a field, but what is a field? What is it comprised of? For that matter, particles are described as excitation in these fields according to QFT, so do we really know what a partcle is?

The current understanding of physics is poor.
I don't understand how some can justify understanding it. To get a better understanding requires thinking outside the box, and therefore, beyond the now. That is all I am doing.

Excuse me, but how exactly do you justify this statement?


I suppose the underlying physics that we use in day to day life, like the thermodynamic properties/cycles that go into operating your car, flying the airplane, and the construction of all the goods you use, are done completely on accident?
fluidistic
#33
Apr11-09, 05:27 PM
PF Gold
fluidistic's Avatar
P: 3,188
The current understanding of physics is poor.
If he study physics seriously, one day he'll realize he'll never know "the current understand of physics" because it is simply too vast and too deep.
I've learned many things on PF, one is that learning about physics is totally different from learning physics.
benk99nenm312
#34
Apr11-09, 05:47 PM
P: 302
Quote Quote by aerospaceut10 View Post
Excuse me, but how exactly do you justify this statement?


I suppose the underlying physics that we use in day to day life, like the thermodynamic properties/cycles that go into operating your car, flying the airplane, and the construction of all the goods you use, are done completely on accident?
When I posted that quote, I was referring to the deeper physics. Perturbation theory is a great example. The concept of virtual particles is hazy, because Perturbation theory describes virtual particles in mathematical expansions, and then I have seen many people rebel the notion of these particles' existence. Some have said that there is no difference between virtual and real particles, some have said that virtual particles are just math (the last one is more common). If you don't believe that, look through some threads here.

I know I can be arrogant sometimes, so, I'm sorry. In whatever defense you will allow me to have, I was somehow being attacked by 2-3 different people when I posted all of that, and I don't respond politely under pressure.
turbo
#35
Apr11-09, 05:57 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Quote Quote by benk99nenm312 View Post
I know I can be arrogant sometimes, so, I'm sorry. In whatever defense you will allow me to have, I was somehow being attacked by 2-3 different people when I posted all of that, and I don't respond politely under pressure.
Keep working at what you want to learn, and realize that what you have to do to earn money right now is not going to be applicable. We are heading into warm weather, and people will want to take vacations. Because of that, people doing blue-collar work will need to be replaced at least temporarily. I suggest that you contact local grocery stores, and ask for summer employment. There is nothing glamorous about stocking shelves and freezers, but it is work that has to be done, reliably with as little supervision as possible. If you are good at it, you can probably work all summer long and earn a decent wage. If you can't do a good job, you are right back where you are now.

When I was in engineering school, I worked summers as a vacation replacement in a veneer mill. I started out doing some pretty menial stuff, and a year or so later, I was lead-operator (all summer long) on a pretty technical finishing line. No line of work is beneath me, and I hope that you'll take that attitude too. Honest labor that is fairly compensated is a good mark on anybody's resume.
Varnick
#36
Apr11-09, 08:48 PM
P: 77
As a 16 year old with few to zero qualifications, I would estimate better employment opportunities being slim. Is there a particular reason you need a better job? I think you mentioned family support.

(About the sub-argument that developed, the OP does come off as rather arrogant, and you should understand that you enrage people because you claim to know everything about something they/we spend years studying in a formal manner.)


Register to reply