Computer Science + Physics: Advice for Double Major

[JohnGano]

Hi everyone,

I'm thinking about doing a computer science/physics double major. I'm interested in computational physics, so I think it'd be a good match.

So I guess I have two questions...

1. If I wanted to do computational physics, would a computer science/math double major be a good foundation to get into grad school for computational physics? Or would it be better to have a stronger physics background?

2. What are the normal courses in a good physics program? The school I'm going to requires these courses:

Engineering Physics I & II
Modern Physics
Applied Mathematics
Analytical Mechanics
Microcomputer Interfacing
Electromagnetic Theory
Advanced Laboratory
Thermodynamics & Statistical Mechanics
Quantum Mechanics

Is there anything missing from this that a physics undergrad should normally take?

Thanks!

 

[DrummingAtom]

From the little I know, computational physics more physics than CS.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=66168&highlight=computational

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=52233&highlight=computational

In one of those threads someone posted several curriculum of computational physics programs, there was even an undergrad one. You might be able to model your classes after that.

 

[The_Duck]

I'm about to graduate with a physics/CS double major. I think CS is helpful for physics insofar as it gives you lots of programming experience, but if that's all you want out of it you should just do a bunch of programming on your own.

Some physics grad programs claim to require an undergraduate degree in physics. If you want to do physics, why would you do a math major instead? If you did CS/math you'd need to take a bunch of core physics courses to be ready for physics grad school.

I think the core of physics undergrad is quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, electromagnetism, and statistical mechanics. These look like your quantum mechanics, analytical mechanics, electromagnetic theory, and statistical mechanics courses. In general I think these courses are longer than a single term (two trimesters where I am) except maybe for stat. mech. My understanding is physics grad schools look most closely at these undergrad courses. Your list looks reasonable.

 

[Simfish]

As a side note, computer science is actually very useful to most modern astrophysics research (which is largely computational - astro departments seem to outsource most of the analytical work to physics departments these days). So that is a path you can also consider.

Also, you're going to have to eventually learn some topics on your own. So go with the degree program that you'd get the most out of. I was a math major at first, and I immensely regret it, because I was paying tuition for it and not getting anything out of it that I couldn't get out of self-study (most math really can be done on your own, using textbooks from several decades ago, whereas CS uses a lot of very modern equipment).

 

[Ryker]

I was a math major at first, and I immensely regret it, because I was paying tuition for it and not getting anything out of it that I couldn't get out of self-study (most math really can be done on your own, using textbooks from several decades ago, whereas CS uses a lot of very modern equipment).

I disagree with that. Sure, you can learn some maths on your own, but if anything, I think it is one of those subjects you get most out of classroom learning. I think guidance by a professor is really important here, maybe not so much because you wouldn't be able to understand that stuff on your own, but because it would take you 10 times as long. As you get a good foundation, you are able to grasp the stuff pretty quickly that way, as well, but I think that only comes after a couple of years being immersed in it, and not coming straight out of high school. Just because CS or medicine or whatever requires stuff you don't have lying around in your room, whereas math doesn't, doesn't mean you get less out of your tuition.

 

[Simfish]

I disagree with that. Sure, you can learn some maths on your own, but if anything, I think it is one of those subjects you get most out of classroom learning. I think guidance by a professor is really important here, maybe not so much because you wouldn't be able to understand that stuff on your own, but because it would take you 10 times as long. As you get a good foundation, you are able to grasp the stuff pretty quickly that way, as well, but I think that only comes after a couple of years being immersed in it, and not coming straight out of high school. Just because CS or medicine or whatever requires stuff you don't have lying around in your room, whereas math doesn't, doesn't mean you get less out of your tuition.

Yeah, it really works differently for different people I suppose. I have severe ADD, so I got virtually nothing out of math lectures, while I got a lot more out of classes where I could actually do things.

In that case, maybe it wasn't my business to go into this thread, but I think a diversity of experiences is still important, and I wanted someone else to respond to my comment.