Level of Learning Theories: String Theory & Loop Quantum Gravity

In summary, at the undergraduate level, you start learning Newtonian Dynamic Theory, and by senior year, you should have a basic grip on EM Theory, and basic Quantum Theory. You don't start learning String Theory and Quantum Gravity until the graduate level.
  • #1
Gear300
1,213
9
At what level (graduate, PhD, etc...) do people start learning theories, such as String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Depends what you mean by theories...you start learning Newtonian Dynamic Theory your first semester of undergraduate physics. By senior year of undergraduate, you should have a basic grip on EM Theory, and basic Quantum Theory...as far as String Theory and Quantum Gravity, I don't think you get into these until the graduate level, but I believe some schools have intro courses for these fields available at the upper undergraduate level.
 
  • #3
pjfoster said:
Depends what you mean by theories...you start learning Newtonian Dynamic Theory your first semester of undergraduate physics. By senior year of undergraduate, you should have a basic grip on EM Theory, and basic Quantum Theory...as far as String Theory and Quantum Gravity, I don't think you get into these until the graduate level, but I believe some schools have intro courses for these fields available at the upper undergraduate level.

I see...so does that mean that when someone applies for an assistant-ship when applying for a graduate school under the intentions of working in those two fields, they take under consideration an adviser who does research in the particular areas (meaning that you can start work in String Theory or Quantum Gravity at graduate level)?
 
  • #4
If we're only talking about the two "Theories" you've mentioned, yes this seems to be something first studied at the graduate level, possibly though research under a professor researching this field.
 
  • #5
I see...now let us say that someone who only did the minimum physics courses (on the basis that physics isn't his/her major) required for graduate school of physics and does relatively well in GRE (this isn't me, this is hypothetical)...what are his chances of working under a professor for these two particular fields (String Theory/Quantum Gravity)?
 
  • #6
Gear300 said:
I see...now let us say that someone who only did the minimum physics courses (on the basis that physics isn't his/her major) required for graduate school of physics and does relatively well in GRE (this isn't me, this is hypothetical)...what are his chances of working under a professor for these two particular fields (String Theory/Quantum Gravity)?
Those requires a huge amount of maths, quite a lot more than what most maths major takes, in addition to require most of the modern theoretical physics so I guess that it would get really rough if you have a poor background like that.

Those subjects are usually not studied at the masters levels either by the way.
 
  • #7
Gear300 said:
now let us say that someone who only did the minimum physics courses (on the basis that physics isn't his/her major) required for graduate school of physics and does relatively well in GRE

I consider this to be extremely unlikely, unless "minimum physics courses" includes a lot more than most people would consider to be the case.
 
  • #8
Gear300 said:
I see...now let us say that someone who only did the minimum physics courses (on the basis that physics isn't his/her major) required for graduate school of physics and does relatively well in GRE (this isn't me, this is hypothetical)...what are his chances of working under a professor for these two particular fields (String Theory/Quantum Gravity)?

The minimum amount of physics courses needed for grad school is such that if you were going to take them as electives in order to prepare for the GRE, you might as well just double major in physics.

Four years of undergraduate physics is needed if you want to be prepared for physics grad school.
 
  • #9
I see...those were well brought answers...thanks.
 

1. What is the difference between String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity?

String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are two different theories that attempt to explain the fundamental nature of the universe. String Theory suggests that the fundamental building blocks of the universe are tiny, vibrating strings, while Loop Quantum Gravity suggests that space itself is made up of tiny, discrete units. Additionally, String Theory attempts to unify all forces of nature, while Loop Quantum Gravity focuses on the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

2. How do these theories explain the concept of the "level of learning"?

The concept of the "level of learning" refers to the idea that these theories attempt to provide a deeper understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe. They aim to explain the underlying principles and laws that govern the behavior of matter and energy, and how they interact with each other. This understanding can then be used to make predictions and advancements in our understanding of the world.

3. Can these theories be tested or proven?

Currently, neither String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity have been proven or disproven. They are both still considered theoretical and have not yet been tested in a way that would provide conclusive evidence. However, scientists are working on developing experiments and observations that could potentially support or refute these theories.

4. How do these theories impact our understanding of the universe?

Both String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity have the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the universe. They offer possible explanations for phenomena that cannot be explained by current theories, such as the behavior of black holes and the origin of the universe. They also provide a framework for unifying the laws of physics and potentially making new discoveries and advancements in science.

5. Are there any criticisms of these theories?

Yes, there are criticisms of both String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. Some scientists argue that these theories are too speculative and lack empirical evidence. Others question the mathematical and conceptual consistency of these theories. However, many researchers continue to work on these theories and address these criticisms in order to further our understanding of the universe.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
24
Views
372
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
992
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
9
Views
442
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
525
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
232
Back
Top