Courses Can a computer illiterate graduate in theoretical physics?

[Pleonasm]

I have recently taken up mathematics at home and found that it does not pose any problems for my future aspirations in becoming a physicist. However, I am not mechanically inclined and can't use a computer to any sophisticated degree. It's all about abstract thinking for me. I fear mechanical mastering will be part of a modern theoretical physics program (advanced computer usage that is) and that I will lag behind the rest when the day comes.

So, is the computer element of modern theoretical physics large enough for one to instead favour pure mathematics - probability theory and statistics, or is this really a non-ussue?

 

[micromass]

It's not a big issue, but it's not a non-issue either. Almost every mathematician or physicist uses computers nowadays to some degree. This might be to do computations, or just to write papers. You're going to need the computer sooner or later. And any undergrad program will make you work with the computer eventually.

So bite the bullet and learn some advanced computer usage.

 

[SteamKing]

I have recently taken up mathematics at home and found that it does not pose any problems for my future aspirations in becoming a physicist. However, I am not mechanically inclined and can't use a computer to any sophisticated degree. It's all about abstract thinking for me. I fear mechanical mastering will be part of a modern theoretical physics program (advanced computer usage that is) and that I will lag behind the rest when the day comes.

So, is the computer element of modern theoretical physics large enough for one to instead favour pure mathematics - probability theory and statistics, or is this really a non-ussue?

So, how do you function day to day?

Do you write out everything longhand? I got to tell ya, I still got calluses on my fingers from handwriting as a kid, and I don't miss it one bit.

If you have to look up something or do research, do you shlep to the library?

If you want to develop a mathematical model of something physical, do you whip out your trusty abacus and go to town on it?

If you want to communicate some insight to your colleagues, do you write out a letter and wait for the snail mail to take it to its destination? I bet you still have one of those phones with a dial or something on it. Even Western Union caught up with the times and stopped using funny little guys tapping out Morse Code.

Man, it's 25 years past Hammer Time! You got to keep up with the times, otherwise, you'll get left behind. It's not 1890 (1790?) anymore, and quill pens and parchment are getting hard to find.

 

[Pleonasm]

It's not a big issue, but it's not a non-issue either. Almost every mathematician or physicist uses computers nowadays to some degree. This might be to do computations, or just to write papers. You're going to need the computer sooner or later. And any undergrad program will make you work with the computer eventually.

So bite the bullet and learn some advanced computer usage.

Alright then. I do question however how a pure mathematics degree - which is really formal just logic with numbers, would entail any mastering of computer language?

So, how do you function day to day?

Do you write out everything longhand? I got to tell ya, I still got calluses on my fingers from handwriting as a kid, and I don't miss it one bit.

If you have to look up something or do research, do you shlep to the library?

If you want to develop a mathematical model of something physical, do you whip out your trusty abacus and go to town on it?

If you want to communicate some insight to your colleagues, do you write out a letter and wait for the snail mail to take it to its destination? I bet you still have one of those phones with a dial or something on it. Even Western Union caught up with the times and stopped using funny little guys tapping out Morse Code.

Man, it's 25 years past Hammer Time! You got to keep up with the times, otherwise, you'll get left behind. It's not 1890 (1790?) anymore, and quill pens and parchment are getting hard to find.

Here's the deal. I was brought up without a computer untl the age of 18. I know nothing about computers aside from googling. I work with a Sony Vaio (rest in peace) laptop.

 

[ZapperZ]

Here's what I'm seeing. I see someone who is set in his/her ways, and who simply do not wish to learn something new, even if it opens a whole new avenue and capabilities that can easily be a tremendous asset. Instead of putting in the effort of acquiring new knowledge and skills, he/she is trying to find ways of not doing it.

So I will ask myself, what else will he/she not wish to learn. If I were to give him/her a topic in a completely new area, will he/she do the same thing and try to go around it, rather than tackle it head on?

This has nothing to do with learning computer skills. It is more of a reflection on your attitude towards acquiring and learning new things. I would not hire you not because of your lack of computer skills, but rather what I perceive as someone who would not care to learn something new. As a scientist (and maybe even for a mathematician), this is an extremely undesirable trait.

Zz.

 

[Pleonasm]

Here's what I'm seeing. I see someone who is set in his/her ways, and who simply do not wish to learn something new, even if it opens a whole new avenue and capabilities that can easily be a tremendous asset. Instead of putting in the effort of acquiring new knowledge and skills, he/she is trying to find ways of not doing it.

So I will ask myself, what else will he/she not wish to learn. If I were to give him/her a topic in a completely new area, will he/she do the same thing and try to go around it, rather than tackle it head on?

This has nothing to do with learning computer skills. It is more of a reflection on your attitude towards acquiring and learning new things. I would not hire you not because of your lack of computer skills, but rather what I perceive as someone who would not care to learn something new. As a scientist (and maybe even for a mathematician), this is an extremely undesirable trait.

Zz.

I am perfectly willing to learn it if they teach me the basics. I am quite sure a physics instructor, however, wouldn't. I am being pragmatic about these issue. If it's of secondary importance I will probably manage anyway. You seem to have a very optimistic view of capabilities. Remember that Albert Einstein failed his electrical engineering studies. He was not mechanically inclined, as he himself stated, yet brilliant.

 

[ZapperZ]

I am perfectly willing to learn it if they teach me the basics. I am quite sure a physics instructor, however, wouldn't. I am being pragmatic about these issues, but if it's of secondary importance I will probably manage anyway. You seem to have a very optimistic view of capabilities. Remember that Albert Einstein failed his electrical engineering studies. He was not mechanically inclined, as he himself stated, yet brilliant.

You have to be really desperate to use Einstein as a role model here. Using an extreme exception to justify anything is awfully weak. How that applies to you, and the times we are living in, is puzzling. When you are that type of an exception, sure, you may write your own ticket. But do you think you are even in the same league to be able to get away with it?

Good luck!

BTW, you ASKED for opinions on here. But it seems that you have a response and excuse to everything that were mentioned. You already made up your mind on this matter, so what the point in all this?

Zz.

 

[micromass]

I am quite sure a physics instructor, however, wouldn't.

You're right, he wouldn't. And there is so many things that he won't teach you. If you're serious about physics, then you need to be able to self-study. Nobody is going to keep holding your hand.

 

[Pleonasm]

You have to be really desperate to use Einstein as a role model here. Using an extreme exception to justify anything is awfully weak. How that applies to you, and the times we are living in, is puzzling. When you are that type of an exception, sure, you may write your own ticket. But do you think you are even in the same league to be able to get away with it?

Good luck!

BTW, you ASKED for opinions on here. But it seems that you have a response and excuse to everything that were mentioned. You already made up your mind on this matter, so what the point in all this?Zz.

I have aspergers syndrome and suffer from the exact same weakness in mechanical abilities as he did. This is a fact. What I ask of the physics community is to take this into concideration. I don't do very well in pretty much any practical application. I also tend to make things more diffcult than they really are.

I don't know if you notice but I did write: "alright then," which basically means that I accepted the answer, though not the second part of it...

 

[Dax331]

i think not since many recent developments in theoretics are based solely on the discovery of the transistor and beyond. but i believe it depends on the will to succeed

 

[SteamKing]

Alright then. I do question however how a pure mathematics degree - which is really formal just logic with numbers, would entail any mastering of computer language?

No one is asking you to become a hot shot software developer. A computer can be a handy tool for those who never programmed a line. You're communicating with an online forum, so computer use is not totally foreign to you.

Here's the deal. I was brought up without a computer untl the age of 18. I know nothing about computers aside from googling. I work with a Sony Vaio (rest in peace) laptop.

And you're not the exception in growing up without having a computer to use, either.

I didn't get to use computers growing up, because the personal computer really didn't take off until after I got out of college. But once small business computers became common in the office, it was either adapt to the new reality or fall by the wayside.

I got to know a lady who lives in a retirement community, no technical background whatsoever, in her 80s at least, and she could manage to use a computer for emailing with her friends and family, surfing the web, playing games and what not. If she got stuck with something, she would ask her nephew or one of her friends to give her a hand in figuring out what to do.

People can learn to drive a car without knowing much how they work under the hood. Driving a car, using a computer, it's learning to use a tool to help you accomplish a certain task more quickly. If you want to be an academic, even one in a theoretical field, you have to use some modern tools. You can't be like Archimedes, drawing stuff in the sand.

 

[micromass]

I have aspergers syndrome and suffer from the exact same weakness in mechanical abilities as he did. This is a fact. What I ask of the physics community is to take this into concideration. I don't do very well in pretty much any practical application. I also tend to make things more diffcult than they really are.

I don't know if you notice but I did write: "alright then," which basically means that I accepted the answer, though not the second part of it...

It might be harsh, but a lot of people won't care about your aspergers syndrome and your mechanical abilities. Sure, in undergrad you might get some extra benefits, but down the line people will take it less and less into consideration. If you don't do well in practical application, then you need to work on it. If you're in grad school and say "I'm not going to solve this equation with mathematica because I have aspergers," then people will not react very understanding to that. Yes, aspergers is a big problem and I do sympathize, but if you want to be competent in research, then you'll need to stud the practical stuff.

 

[Almeisan]

Whatever job you take, if you want to operate at a 'high level', you need to be computer literate.

Physics or math degrees are not CS or software engineering degrees, like some people here want to suggest.
Depending on what you do, programming becomes important to very important. In other areas, other subjects become more important, like technical skills.

If you are going to give up on a high level education just because some skills you need to develop don't come naturally to you, you aren't going to amount to anything.
You say you didn't grow up with a computer. So what does that say about your natural ability to learn how to use one?

 

[Pleonasm]

None. But I don't want to fall behind my peers in class. If fear the programming part is a bit too much for a complete noob. Pure mathematics does not require programming of any sort. But if the programming aspect is fairly self explanatory I see no problem ahead.

 

[micromass]

Pure mathematics does not require programming of any sort.

False

 

[Pleonasm]

False

Please elaborate which type of programming a pure mathematics degree would require. Pure mathematics must have evolved then, despite not being a scientific discipline.

 

[micromass]

Please elaborate which type of programming a pure mathematics degree would require. Pure mahematics must have evolved then, despite not being a scientific discipline.

It depends on what kind of math you're going to get into. But whatever you will do, you will end up writing mathematical documents. For that you need to know LaTeX. It's not exactly programming, but not very easy either. If you're going into group theory for example, you will need programs where you get to manipulate algebraic structures like GAP. This is a full programming language. Maybe you will need to solve equations with MATLAB or mathematica. There's so much a computer can be useful for. I could not have done my research without knowledge of computers!

Maybe an undergrad degree in pure math will even require a programming course (it did with me).

 

[QuantumCurt]

Basically any math major is going to be required to take at least an introductory computer programming course. And many math majors will either be required to take, or strongly encouraged to take some classes in numerical methods and/or numerical analysis. These courses are very good for physics majors to take as well. Just about any physics degree will require at least introductory programming. Either of these majors is likely to require at least some technical papers involving some degree of mathematics, which involves learning to type the language of mathematics.

Like it or not, these are essential parts of doing mathematics or physics today. We have tools available today that simplify many tasks, and using them is an essential part of working in these fields. Equations that can literally take days to solve can be solved almost instantly with computers. This is a valuable skill.

 

[Terminatrix]

Computers use the exact same type of abstract reasoning as mathematics. In fact there is no mechanical aptitude in computer usage. Every mathematician I have met (under the age of 60) can code as well as any computer scientist. I don't get how you can separate it honestly, computers are math. If you can't get computers, I really suspect any advanced physics experiment is bit beyond your reach.

Programming is input->expression->output. Its math on wheels. I'm really breaking my brain trying to imagine someone good with high level mathematics that couldn't program. Its like trying to imagine someone who can run, but falls when they walk.

 

[QuantumCurt]

I'm a bit confused by your description of computer programming as a mechanical skill. The only mechanics involved in programming are the movement of ones fingers across the keys. A mechanical skill would be designing and building the computer itself. You might find that you'll take to programming much more easily than you're imagining.

 

[Pleonasm]

Computers use the exact same type of abstract reasoning as mathematics. In fact there is no mechanical aptitude in computer usage. Every mathematician I have met (under the age of 60) can code as well as any computer scientist. I don't get how you can separate it honestly, computers are math. If you can't get computers, I really suspect any advanced physics experiment is bit beyond your reach.

Programming is input->expression->output. Its math on wheels. I'm really breaking my brain trying to imagine someone good with high level mathematics that couldn't program. Its like trying to imagine someone who can run, but falls when they walk.

The candidates program in mathematics over here is all about deducing mathematical proofs. Most of the examinations are verbal, some are in a class writing on a piece of paper answering question, just as one would have done in a philosophy or history examination.

Perhaps the master programme in mathematics is where computers play a more integral role..

 

[Pleonasm]

I'm a bit confused by your description of computer programming as a mechanical skill. The only mechanics involved in programming are the movement of ones fingers across the keys. A mechanical skill would be designing and building the computer itself. You might find that you'll take to programming much more easily than you're imagining.

That's true, but my skills in both are equally non existent. I can't get the program to work and deduce the proofs. I find there are too many intermediate steps for me to independentaly figure it out.. And I keep on making misstakes! Add to that a complete lack of experience with programs in general and you have a state of demoralization.

Imagine showing it to your parents of a different generation. It's like a foreing language to them. They wouldn't even know where to start. I am much the same.

 

[micromass]

That's true, but my skills in both are equally non existent. I can't get the program to work and deduce the proofs. I find there are too many intermediate steps for me to independentaly figure it out.. And I keep on making misstakes! Add to that a complete lack of experience with programs in general and you have a state of demoralization.

Imagine showing it to your parents of a different generation. It's like a foreing language to them. They wouldn't even know where to start. I am much the same.

Right. And complaining about it won't help. Get a book on programming and work through it. If you program every day for an hour or an half hour each day, then you'll get it in no time.

My recommendation: download the following language: http://racket-lang.org and work through the following book: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html You'll be very decent in programming in a month or so.

 

[cgk]

Pleonasm, I cannot understand your attitude. The fact is: In science, the combination "human+computer" is much more powerful on any conceivable level than just a human alone. By using computers, one can solve problems faster, often by many orders of magnitude, and can solve many problems a human alone could not even dream of attempting to solve. Even basic computing skills can offer open worlds of opportunity.

What does this mean for you? Unless you learn to use computers effectively, you cannot ever hope to use your time and skills effectively. And, on a more mundane level, it means that most likely you will be out-competed by your peers---to a degree which is not even funny any more. It will be like entering a 200 mile race where you walk and everyone else is using cars or helicopters.

And, I do not understand where you get the impression that using computers is "mechanical" in any way. Coding is one of the (if not simply THE) most creative and logical endeavors you could get into on earth. Look up what Terminatrix said above. This post is correct.

 

[QuantumCurt]

I have an 89 year old grandpa that uses email, Facebook, various message boards (relating to his coin collection), and pays his bills online. He was around for like 60 years before computers were really even a "thing" in the household sense. Adapting to change is one of the central aspects of life and how people grow. We learn things by doing them.

I was born in 1986, and we didn't have a computer until about 2002 when I was 16. I've never done much on computers aside from surfing the internet, but upon returning to school a few years ago at 25, I discovered how important they were. I've since learned to do a lot with them, and I have a few programming courses in my plans for the next few years.

 

[Pleonasm]

Will my ability to grasp programming/structures increase as I learn higher mathematics? Does one follow naturally from the other?

 

[micromass]

Will my ability to grasp programming/structures increase as I learn higher mathematics? Does one follow naturally from the other?

No, but there are many connections between the two. If anything, your ability of mathematics will increase if you know more programming. In any case, if mathematics is not difficult for you, then programming should be easy too.

 

[kith]

When studying for my physics degree, I knew two people who were very unfamiliar with standard programs and computers in general. Yet both of them quickly learned the essence of programming. In fact, their programs were so good that I was truly puzzled numerous times when they were unable to do simple things with their computers in situations unrelated to their research.

I think that it is more important to know exactly what you want your program to do and how to break this in small logical steps than to know the technical details of actually implementing your ideas. You will quickly learn the latter if you are good with the former. Also many people are happy to assist you with such things.

 

[Pleonasm]

No, but there are many connections between the two. If anything, your ability of mathematics will increase if you know more programming. In any case, if mathematics is not difficult for you, then programming should be easy too.

Isn't it more prudent to start by mastering mathematics, which is more familiar, and then programming?

I haven't received a response to my objections as to what some mathematical institutionens might offer for an intended graduate. Having seen with my own eyes math tests at university level in a pure mathematics - Candidates, and it did not contain programming whatsoever. Are you in fact sure of your contention above, that such courses are eventually mandatory?

 

[micromass]

Isn't it more prudent to start by mastering mathematics, which is more familiar, and then programming?

If programming is your weak side, then you should start now.

I haven't had received a response to my objections as to what some mathematical institutionens might offer for an intended graduate. I have indeed seen math tests at university level in a pure mathematics - Candidates, and it did not contain programming whatsoever. Are you in fact sure of your contention that such courses are eventually mandatory?

Yes, I am sure that in my university every physics and math major needed to take a programming course. Your university could be different.

 

[QuantumCurt]

Every single math or physics degree program that I've looked into involves at least an introductory programming course. And given that I'm a physics/math double major, I've looked at a lot. It doesn't make sense to learn all of the math and then go back and learn all of the programming. It makes sense to learn them at the same time. Otherwise you'll be in advanced math classes and simultaneously learning how to program a computer to add 1+1 when you could be using it within your advanced math classes.

Programming and general familiarity with using a computer as a tool is incredibly beneficial in just about any math class. I was in an intermediate level differential equations class last semester. One of the topics we covered was numerical approximations to solution of differential equations using methods such as the Euler Method and the Runge-Kutta Method. These involve repeated iterative calculations using long decimals. They can be done by hand, but I'd have been sitting there for an hour working on one problem. Instead I set up an Excel spreadsheet (which took about 5 minutes) and then ran the necessary calculations (a few more minutes to record the data). Setting up an Excel spreadsheet to run my calculations was a far cry from writing an actual program to do it, but it still takes some knowledge to do it. What sounds better? Plugging 9 digit decimals into a calculator for an hour, or spending 5 minutes setting up a spreadsheet that did it for me?

 

[jtbell]

I'm a bit confused by your description of computer programming as a mechanical skill.

I suspect Pleonasm's native language is not English.

 

[Pleonasm]

I suspect Pleonasm's native language is not English.

Well, I know the difference. I was simply being sloppy by not explaining how I lack both skill sets. My streight lies in verbal comprehension. You are quite right in that this is not my native language.

Regarding programming - I can name at least one fairly respected discipline which does not require computational work, beyond the trivial usage of writing in Word, and that's in the general field of psychology (there might be exceptions within psychology).

Right?

 

[QuantumCurt]

No, psychology wouldn't generally require much in the way of programming. Although it wouldn't be unheard of for a psychologist to use a computer program to work with various statistics. Though I'm not sure what relevance that has here. Psychology is incredibly far removed from the physical sciences.

 

[Pleonasm]

It was in response to this:

Whatever job you take, if you want to operate at a 'high level', you need to be computer literate.

Psychology, Economics, Law, all well regarded disciplines encompassing little to no programming. I will concede however that it is intrisic to modern mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology graduates.

 

[QuantumCurt]

It was never said that one needed to know programming for all fields. It was said that one needed to be computer literate. Economics can involve a great deal of programming. It involves a lot of statistics and distributions and such, which are best handled by computers these days. Psychology doesn't require much programming, but it involves a great deal of computer usage and can involve a lot of statistics and such. The same can be said for law. All of these fields are going to involve using computers to create spread sheets and graphs and such. There's really no getting around the need for computer literacy these days. It is a central part of how our society functions.

 

[radium]

It's not that difficult. Though I enjoy the algorithmic way of thinking, I am not so enthusiastic about learning programming syntax, so I just learn that as I go. I know how to use Mathematica pretty well, the Command line, I know LaTex very well, and I am becoming more proficient in Matlab and Python nowadays. I learned pretty much everything I know in Mathematica from the documentation center. Same as LaTex. If you don't know what something is look there, if you can't find it/don't know what it's called, go to google.

For the more analytical project I did in undergrad (condensed matter theory) I made all the figures in Mathematica which seems to be a common computational tool for theorists who do more analytical work. They also may use Matlab if for example they are trying to solve the Einstein equation for some metric in AdS/CFT.

 

[SteamKing]

Psychology, Economics, Law, all well regarded disciplines encompassing little to no programming. I will concede however that it is intrisic to modern mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology graduates.

It might surprise you to know that economists deal with reams of data collected from all forms of commerce and other economic activity. They also put together extremely sophisticated economic models to help forecast prices and such. There were two prize-winning economists who tried to develop a formula or model which could be used to price various types of options, but the real world results of its application to the actual market cost them a fortune.

The Law handles volumes of data, but it is mostly in text form. A modern law office cannot function without computers. When you see lawyers in their offices, they are usually depicted being surrounded by many books, presumably filled with case law. However, instead of researching thru these many tomes, looking for the right case, there is a huge database called Lexis which can be used to search for relevant case law. The day to day stuff, like forms, affidavits, depositions, etc., all have equivalent electronic versions, which can be transmitted without being put on piles of dead trees and hauled around like so many phone books.

The most infamous person who tried to insulate and isolate his existence from the electronic world was Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, and his is a cautionary tale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

 

[Pleonasm]

It might surprise you to know that economists deal with reams of data collected from all forms of commerce and other economic activity. They also put together extremely sophisticated economic models to help forecast prices and such. There were two prize-winning economists who tried to develop a formula or model which could be used to price various types of options, but the real world results of its application to the actual market cost them a fortune.

The Law handles volumes of data, but it is mostly in text form. A modern law office cannot function without computers. When you see lawyers in their offices, they are usually depicted being surrounded by many books, presumably filled with case law. However, instead of researching thru these many tomes, looking for the right case, there is a huge database called Lexis which can be used to search for relevant case law. The day to day stuff, like forms, affidavits, depositions, etc., all have equivalent electronic versions, which can be transmitted without being put on piles of dead trees and hauled around like so many phone books.

The most infamous person who tried to insulate and isolate his existence from the electronic world was Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, and his is a cautionary tale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

You are blurring an obvious distinction between computer storing and computation/programming.

 

[Pleonasm]

The most infamous person who tried to insulate and isolate his existence from the electronic world was Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, and his is a cautionary tale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

And the psychologist of course diagnosed him with Paranoid schizophrenia. Why am I not surprised by psychologists simplistic minds. Not the first or last time. The discipline of psychology is in need of major revision, but that's for a separate discussion.

 

[clope023]

Are you in fact sure of your contention above, that such courses are eventually mandatory?

Any math or physics program worth their salt would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

 

[QuantumCurt]

You are blurring an obvious distinction between computer storing and computation/programming.

I don't think it's really a blurred distinction. Economics can use a great deal of programming. The computer usage of a law office tends to involve more in the way of storage than it does programming, but it's still relevant because it requires one to be computer literate. This doesn't just mean knowing how to type a Word document and find a file. It means knowing how to do these things efficiently with a logical system. It's not unusual for lawyers to need to create spreadsheets or graphs.

In either case, I'm not sure what the relevance is here. Yes, there are careers out there that don't involve any computer programming. However, the careers in which you've expressed interest do happen to require some programming.

 

[Physics Monkey]

Pleonasm,

The extent to which you need to be able to work with a computer varies a lot based on what type of physics you want to do and what problems you work on.

Every senior graduate student I know is capable of writing papers using LaTeX (for typesetting scientific documents), so this seems like a must these days. Also, many graduate students are now able to use a program like Mathematica or MATLAB to help do integrals and the like. I would encourage you to think of these things as resources to aid in thinking. For example, it really helps to be able to do little numerical "experiments" when thinking through a complicated problem.

Examples:

In string theory one class of interesting problem concerns classification of different kinds of Calabi-Yau manifolds. There is a lot of "pure theory" here but at the end of the day people I know ultimately write computer programs to produce lists of such manifolds. These programs are not ultimately that complicated but it is used in research.

In condensed matter theory one is often concerned with the energy levels of some system of weakly interacting fermions. Unless the problem has a lot of symmetry it is often necessary to diagonalize a matrix to determine the energies. Again, some computation is required but it is not a very complex program.

In theoretical particle physics one computes a lot of integrals (Feynman diagrams) where again a simple integrator program like Mathematica is widely used.

In AdS/CFT research one solves a lot of coupled ordinary differential equations. Again, something like Mathematica is widely used.

In quantum information science, many ideas are first tested on systems of a few qubits using a computer. This helps build intuition and is a source of conjectures.

and so on ...

Of course, there is a lot of physics that is much more computational than this, but even fairly abstract disciplines tend to use the computer a little bit. After all, physics is not just about abstract ideas but about bringing those ideas into the messy details of the real world.

However, I would again encourage you, if you can, to not dwell on the computer is a burden to be overcome. Instead try to think of it as a powerful tool to help you do better physics. For example, often times asking yourself the question "how could I tell a computer to do this?" clarifies your thinking by forcing you to be very explicit and leave nothing undefined.

One suggestion for improving your feeling towards computers and computation which helped me is to delve into the theory of computation. What I mean is that computers are not just tools but also a source of tremendous "pure mathematical" insight. Deep questions like what does it mean to know something, or prove something, or learn something have all been powerfully influenced by computer theory. Computers have also had a profound impact on our conceptualization of the mind. Abstract computational theory is even playing an increasing role in physics. In short, I found joy in thinking about the abstract questions of computation and it helped make the practical parts much easier and more exciting for me.

 

[Pleonasm]

Pleonasm,

The extent to which you need to be able to work with a computer varies a lot based on what type of physics you want to do and what problems you work on.

Let's take astrophysics - cosmology (origin of the universe) - relativity - quantum mechanics. I have been told that a theoretical astrophysicist works differently with computers from that of a theoretical physicist, and that astrophysics it's the least math-heavy discipline in physics.

Does a theoretical astrophysicst extrapolate more than a theoretical physicist?

 

[micromass]

Let's take astrophysics - cosmology (origin of the universe) - relativity - quantum mechanics. I have been told that a theoretical astrophysicist works differently with computers from that of a theoretical physicist, and that astrophysics it's the least math-heavy discipline in physics.

Does a theoretical astrophysicst extrapolate more than a theoretical physicist?

There is no such thing as a theoretical physicist. You can do theory in physics in almost every branch. So you can do theoretical GR, you can do theoretical condensed matter, etc.

 

[Pleonasm]

There is no such thing as a theoretical physicist. You can do theory in physics in almost every branch. So you can do theoretical GR, you can do theoretical condensed matter, etc.

There is no such thing as a theoretical physicist? Haha. You mean other than the fact that there is a theoretical physics graduate school? Astrophysics, on the other hand, is located in the astronomy department.

 

[micromass]

There is no such thing as a theoretical physicist? Haha. You mean other than the fact that there is a theoretical physics graduate school? Astrophysics, on the other hand, is located in the astronomy department.

I'm just saying that asking what computer skills a theoretical physics needs is as broad as asking what skills a human being needs: it's depending on the specific situation.

 

[QuantumCurt]

There's no such thing as a "theoretical physicist" in the sense of that being a job title. There are theorists working in every branch of physics from quantum field theory, relativity, classical mechanics, materials science, condensed matter, and any other field of physics imaginable. In other words, one is not going to see a job listing saying "we need a theoretical physicist." That says next to nothing about the actual nature of the job. More likely, one would see something along the lines of "theorist in field A, with experience working in the intersection of sub-fields X and Y within field A, using methods B, C, and D." Similarly, if one were to say "I'm a theoretical physicist," there is virtually zero information to say what it is that one actually does. In that sense, there's no such thing as a theoretical physicist.

The question "Does a theoretical astrophysicst extrapolate more than a theoretical physicist?" isn't really answerable. That's the point. A "theoretical astrophysicist" encompasses a wide range of subjects. It's not as though all astrophysicists are working on the same kinds of projects or using the same kind of methods. Some of them are likely to make very heavy use of programming. Some barely use it for anything.

You ask if a theoretical astrophysicist extrapolates more than a theoretical physicist. First we have to determine exactly what type of project this astrophysicist is working in. Then...what do you mean by theoretical physicist? Is this person working on superconducting materials? Quantum field theory? Relativity? There's a similar trend here. Some areas will use a ton of programming. Other areas will barely use it at all.

You're asking questions that don't really have a simple answer. You're asking whether A or B involves more programming...and the answer depends greatly upon many factors about the specific nature of both A and B that are not specified in your question.

 

[ZapperZ]

Let's take astrophysics - cosmology (origin of the universe) - relativity - quantum mechanics. I have been told that a theoretical astrophysicist works differently with computers from that of a theoretical physicist, and that astrophysics it's the least math-heavy discipline in physics.

Does a theoretical astrophysicst extrapolate more than a theoretical physicist?

I'm surprised this thread is still going on and on and on...

You are pulling hairs, here. How many job opening do you THINK, are available in the very strict, narrow capabilities that you are asking for here? Seriously!

Even if you don't care about learning how to use computers, think about your "EMPLOYABILITY" when you enter the job market! What are your chances of getting an employment when you have ZERO capability of using a computer, or doing computing, as part of your skill? Are you that delusional into thinking that you have such a bright chance of getting a faculty job with such a narrow capability and skills?

Despite the overwhelming advice you've been getting, you continue to find some "escape clause", no matter how poor it is, in trying to avoid learning something that is easily a benefit! I think you should continue doing what you've been doing, i.e. avoiding any interaction with using computers in your academic setting. The ONLY way that all that has been said here will sink in and be apparent to you is when you graduate and try to find a job.

Zz.

 

[QuantumCurt]

The only thing I'd add to my previous comments is a bit of an analogy.

Let's suppose that someone gets hired to be the grill cook at McDonald's or any other restaurant for that matter. Let's further suppose that this person catches on...they're great at running the grill. And then a slow day comes and the manager tells the employee to go in back and wash some dishes. If the employee says "Oh, no way. I've never washed any dishes before. That's not part of my job description. I'm just here to run the grill." How do you think the employer is going to react? Are they going to say "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you'd never washed dishes before. Never mind, we'll find someone else to do it."? No, they're not. They're going to tell the employee that washing dishes is a part of the job and that they'd better learn how to wash dishes.

This analogy isn't perfect, but I think it works well enough for the purpose. If someone is employed as a "theoretical physicist" in some branch of physics, and encounters a portion of a project that involves some programming, it's going to be assumed that they have the ability to write the program, or at least have the resources to learn how to write it. If one does not have this capability, it makes one a far less desirable employee, because there are likely to be many other qualified applicants with the same experience, in addition to experience writing code.

The job listing I described earlier was "theorist in field A, with experience working in the intersection of sub-fields X and Y within field A, using methods B, C, and D." This job listing will also frequently include "Programming experience required. Experience using programming language z is not required, but greatly preferred." Point being - it is essential for anyone looking toward a future in mathematics or the physical sciences to be at least familiar with the basics of programming. You've gotten a lot of advice. You can either take it or leave it, but as someone who is working toward a similar goal, I know that I'm certainly going to be learning as much programming as I can.