Did I make a mistake in choosing physics over math?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar_4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mistake Physics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concerns of a graduate student who is contemplating their choice between pursuing physics and mathematics, particularly in the context of their upcoming graduate program in gravitation and its focus on astrophysics. Participants explore the mathematical aspects involved in theoretical astrophysics and general relativity, questioning the extent to which advanced mathematics will be utilized in their research.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster expresses uncertainty about whether their choice of physics over mathematics was a mistake, given their strong interest in mathematical concepts like geometry and topology.
  • Some participants suggest that there will be ample opportunity to engage with mathematics in general relativity and theoretical astrophysics, citing experiences from others who have pursued similar paths.
  • One participant questions the characterization of "numerical" work as not being "mathy," seeking clarification on the specific mathematical content of such research.
  • Another participant shares their own background in applied mathematics and astrophysics, expressing a desire to understand how mathematical concepts apply to their interests in cosmology and general relativity.
  • There is a suggestion that the original poster should review recent papers from faculty at their institution to gauge the mathematical rigor of the program.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definition of "mathy" and whether numerical work qualifies as such. There are differing opinions on the extent of mathematics involved in astrophysics research, with some asserting that it will be sufficient while others remain uncertain.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the ambiguity surrounding the term "mathy" and the subjective nature of what constitutes sufficient mathematics in research. There is also an implied limitation in understanding the specific mathematical requirements of the graduate program without firsthand experience.

quasar_4
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I've been accepted to a graduate school that is good in gravitation, which is what I want to do. Here is the thing: lately I've been wondering if I should've become a mathematician instead of a physicist. I was a dual math/physics major for my undergrad. work, and loved the math side - mostly geometry, algebra, topology, etc. I did research in general relativity as an undergrad. and loved it, but my research was on the mathy side of things (finding isometry groups, classifying things, etc.).

Now the grad program I'm heading to is good in gravity, but I think leans more toward the astrophysics approach - specifically a lot of data analysis, modeling binary coalescence, etc. The problem is I don't know what that really entails. Will there be any math in this stuff? I love my upper division physics courses, esp. quantum, but I can't imagine my life doing some kind of research without utilizing any pretty math (manifolds, groups, etc.). Have I made a huge mistake in choosing physics over math? What kind of math is typically employed for the average theoretical astrophysicist? How "mathy" can one make this stuff?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I had a very good friend who came from a math background, she did very similar undergraduate research as you have done. She did her PhD in Numerical Relativity/GR. Her word is extremely "mathy."

I really do not think you will be wanting for mathematics while working in GR or Theoretical Astrophysics.
 
I don't think "numerical" would qualify as mathy here. What kind of stuff did she do specifically?
 
Norman said:
I really do not think you will be wanting for mathematics while working in GR or Theoretical Astrophysics.

I'm not a graduate student, but from those I've spoken to...you probably won't be wishing you had more math with GR.

I'm an applied math major, astrophysics minor that is hoping to follow a similar route as you into a physics graduate program. As I get closer to the application process, I'm really wondering if I should go the math route? I enjoy math more than physics, but...all the math I enjoy "playing" with involves theoretical physics.
(If that is confusing...I want to do mathematics at the graduate level...but everything I seem to enjoy in mathematics ends up being something that is applied to cosmology, GR, etc.)
I doubt you'll remember this thread (or that I'll remember it), but as you get into the swing of things, I'd really be interested to hear your take on how "mathy" your program has been.

Good luck!
 
durt said:
I don't think "numerical" would qualify as mathy here. What kind of stuff did she do specifically?

It would be hard for you to determine the validity of that statement since you are not the one who originally used the term "mathy" which I don't believe has a clear definition.

Either way, she did some work on black hole thermodynmics, quantum gravity, and neutron equations of state constrained from gravitational wave astronomy. The latter work on neutron equations of state was mainly done using numerical simulations of neutron star inspirals which is why I included the numerical statement.

Either way, the best thing for quasar to do is to have a look around on the Arxiv at recent papers the faculty at the institution (s)he will be attending have published and decide if there is enough elegant math to satisfy him.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
41
Views
9K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K