Can I Study Theoretical Physics with an Applied Physics Degree?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the potential for a student with a bachelor's degree in applied physics to pursue further studies in theoretical physics, particularly in fields such as particle physics. Participants explore the definitions and distinctions between applied and theoretical physics programs, as well as the implications for academic and career paths.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a degree in applied physics would limit opportunities in theoretical physics, suggesting that a combined math physics program could help bridge any gaps.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on what constitutes an applied physics program, implying that it may not cover topics like general relativity.
  • Some participants argue that the distinction between applied and theoretical physics is not clear-cut, with one suggesting that much of theoretical physics could be considered applied.
  • There is a suggestion that applied physics programs focus more on practical applications and less on theoretical coursework, which may affect preparedness for theoretical studies.
  • One participant asserts that a student could transition from an applied physics background to theoretical physics, provided they have a solid foundation in basic theoretical concepts.
  • Another participant challenges the notion that applied physics lacks theoretical content, citing examples of theoretical work published in applied physics journals.
  • Participants discuss the historical context of what is considered applied versus theoretical physics, noting that fields like condensed matter physics and high energy physics are categorized differently.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of applied versus theoretical physics. There is no consensus on whether an applied physics degree is sufficient for pursuing theoretical physics, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the clarity of these distinctions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the ambiguity in the definitions of applied and theoretical physics, as well as the varying curricula of different programs. There are indications of misunderstandings regarding the nature of theoretical physics and its relationship to applied physics.

Nathew
Okay, so, the college I will probably attend is more of a applied physics program. If I want to go on to study particle physics or even theoretical physics would I have a chance if my bachelors is in applied physics?

I talked with the head of physics and he said they have a combined math physics program that will allow me to learn the maths necessary for higher physics. Is this a good plan?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is an applied physics program?

Much of theoretical physics is what I imagine most would consider applied physics.
 
Like the program doesn't go into general relativity or stuff like that.
 
This appears to be another example of a wrong understanding of what "theoretical physics" is.

https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3727

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That does clear things up. Thank you.
However, the head of physics still said the program is more applied physics.

What did he mean by that then?
 
Shouldn't you ask him what he meant by that?

This is very hard to answer, since you seem to have a misunderstanding of what theoretical physics is and not a very clear idea what applied physics is.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Shouldn't you ask him what he meant by that?

This is very hard to answer, since you seem to have a misunderstanding of what theoretical physics is and not a very clear idea what applied physics is.

Yes, I should have. But I didn't. I don't know what you want me to do. It was more convenient for me to just ask here considering I only saw him briefly.

What was the point of your post?
 
To me "applied" implies just that - emphasis on application. A "regular" physics degree is almost all theory. There is very little lab or application studied. Applied physics programs probably spend less time with Griffiths and more time in a lab. Less time on Boas and more time coding solutions. Thats what I would guess.

I think you could go into theory from an applied physics BS. Unless your program is starkly deficient in basic textbook theory... But that can be made up by you if you really want.
 
Nathew said:
What was the point of your post?

To point out your question was sufficiently unclear as to preclude a useful answer. We need to be talking in a common language, and we are not. Look at the answer by ModusPwnd: he's trying to figure out what you mean.
 
  • #10
ModusPwnd said:
To me "applied" implies just that - emphasis on application. A "regular" physics degree is almost all theory. There is very little lab or application studied. Applied physics programs probably spend less time with Griffiths and more time in a lab. Less time on Boas and more time coding solutions. Thats what I would guess.

I think you could go into theory from an applied physics BS. Unless your program is starkly deficient in basic textbook theory... But that can be made up by you if you really want.

This is incorrect, or at least in correct for most cases. Case in point: open journals such as Journal of Applied Physics. You'll see theoretical papers in there as well!

It has more to do with a historical notion of areas of physics that has an obvious "application". So condensed matter physics, accelerator physics, optics, atomic/molecular physics, etc. are considered to be "applied", whereas high energy physics, elementary particles, string/quantum gravity, etc. are often considered as to not be "applied".

Zz.
 
  • #11
ZapperZ said:
So condensed matter physics, accelerator physics, optics, atomic/molecular physics, etc. are considered to be "applied", whereas high energy physics, elementary particles, string/quantum gravity, etc. are often considered as to not be "applied".

And note that all of these fields except string/QG have both theorists and experimentalists.
 
  • #12
Okay. I think I have a better understanding now. Thank you guys!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K