Cosmology or Theoretical Physics for job?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between Cosmology and Theoretical Physics, particularly in the context of choosing between job offers in these fields. Participants explore the nature of each discipline, their interrelations, and the implications for career paths.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the differences between Cosmology and Theoretical Physics, seeking clarification on their main distinctions.
  • Another participant argues that Theoretical Physics is not a subject but rather an approach to describing phenomena, contrasting it with Cosmology, which is described as a specific area of study within astronomy.
  • A participant suggests that one could be a theoretical cosmologist, indicating a potential overlap between the two fields.
  • Discussion includes the existence of both experimental and theoretical cosmology, with experimental cosmology focusing on data gathering and theoretical cosmology dealing with the underlying equations.
  • One participant emphasizes that theoretical physics encompasses a broad range of subjects and is not limited to Cosmology, suggesting that the two fields will not become indistinguishable.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential confusion for newcomers regarding the definitions and relationships between these fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the relationship between Cosmology and Theoretical Physics. While some acknowledge the possibility of being a theoretical cosmologist, others maintain that Theoretical Physics is a broader approach that cannot be classified as a specific field.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of Cosmology and Theoretical Physics, as well as the implications of being classified under one or the other. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of what constitutes a field versus an approach in physics.

xcualquiera
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
¿Cosmology or Theoretical Physics?

I have a dilemma. I have an offer for Cosmology and I have an offer for Theoretical Physics. I'm ofcourse aware of both fields, but I would like to know from you what their main differences are.

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Are these masters programmes or...? If this is a decision you need to make now, then you should really be at the level where you know know what the 'difference' is: they aren't even comparable in the way in which you're asking.

Theoretical physics isn't a subject, cosmology is. Loosly, theoretical physics is a term used to describe an approach - describing phenomena through theory. Experimental physics is the alternative - making measurements that can be used to test theory.

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

Cosmology is a specific area of study within astronomy which deals with the universe on a large scale.

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

Didn't you look to see what the programmes involved before applying to them?
 


I though there was more to it than what is obvious. Thanks.
 


Can't you be a theoretical cosmologist?
 


Pinu7 said:
Can't you be a theoretical cosmologist?


I was just checking the wikipedia links above and I saw some link for theoretical Cosmology. There is a field called "Brane Cosmology", pretty attractive. This is why I though that perhaps Cosmology and theoretical physcs would become indistinguishable at a certain point.

I'm really happy to enter into theoretical physics, I just hope I'm up to the expectations.
 


I've always thought cosmology is just a branch of physics in Theoretical Physics
 


There IS actually an experimental cosmology and a theoretical cosmology. Experimental cosmology would be data gathering of astrophysical data using powerful equipment.

Theoretical cosmology is the equations behind it.
 


I'm hoping to clean this thread up so as to not confuse any inexperienced people who might be visiting this forum.

The point I made was that just because cosmology can be theoretical, it doesn't mean theoretical physics is cosmology. Theoretical physics is not a 'field'.

Theory is not specific to any branches of physics. Theory is a particular approach you're taking to describe the physics.

Cosmology is a specific branch of physics. You can be a theoretical cosmologist, just the same as you can be a theoretical solid state physicist. Like I said, physics is theoretical or experimental. Every specific subject in physics fits into one, or both, of these classes. Think of them as umbrella terms. Within these classes are the hundreds of different subjects.

The two will never be indistinguishable - you cannot study 'theoretical physics', unless you take it to mean everything that is theoretical in physics (which would, literally, be impossible to 'study') then it isn't a subject.

You confusion may have come from the fact that describing oneself as a theoretical physicist is perhaps a bit of a misnomer, since 'theoretical physicist' misses the actual subject one is working on.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
941
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K