Disenchanted with Physics Other Sciences?

  • Thread starter Thread starter darkchild
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a recent physics graduate's disillusionment with the subject, feeling that physics education focuses too much on abstract models rather than concrete understanding of how the physical world operates. The individual expresses frustration with the reliance on mathematical constructs, such as magnetic fields, which they believe are disconnected from reality. They are considering a shift to Earth Science or Planetary Science, hoping for a more objective approach to understanding the physical world. Respondents emphasize that physics does provide explanations, albeit through complex mathematical frameworks, and that models are essential for approximating reality. The conversation highlights a broader debate about the nature of scientific inquiry and the balance between theoretical models and practical understanding.
  • #61
Also if you find out that there are five or six equivalent ways of describing something, there is usually some extremely deep and abstract mathematical reason why.

One theorem is that every symmetry results in a field, so what particle physicists have been looking for for the last several decades is to start with some "obvious" symmetry and then show that they create fields which explain everything.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
darkchild said:
Background information: I received my B.S. in Physics with an Astrophysics concentration last month. I was confused and unhappy with what I was learning during my university studies. I've come to realize that I pursued Physics with the expectation of learning how the world worked; what I actually learned about (beyond first year physics or so) were a bunch of metaphors for how the world works (models) and how to do all sorts of calculations with these metaphors. Sometimes, I sit and marvel at all the work I did, all the physics that is being done all over the world, and has been done all throughout time, juxtaposed with the fact that scientists still don't know the answer to "how" with regard to fundamental questions.

... I began to wonder if Earth Science or Planetary Science are more objective-reality-focused than Physics, and if I would find some satisfaction in studying them in graduate school. I know that some of the material will refer to the aspects of Physics that I dislike, but I could be fine with that as long as it is not the case most of the time. I would like some insight about these fields, given the information I've mentioned about my interests and perspective. I'm somewhat inhibited in my ability to research it myself right now, being in a foreign country where I can't read the language well enough to make good use of a library, but I can look up research papers, etc., online if anyone has that sort of suggestion.

This was not easy for me to express, so thanks for taking the time to read it and for any suggestions.

I ended up in the same position as you three decades ago. That led to a variety of jobs in various sciences. You don't get any nearer to "real reality" doing "Planetary science" or whatever. It doesn't really matter which science you take, if you like the actual process of thinking logically/mathematically/programatically then stay in science, just choose whatever job pays best/has the nicest colleagues/isn't too crazy a work environment/short hours. Look for enchantment in Mozart and Dickens and girlfriends. Reading some pop philosophy might help orient you (Bryan Magee, Alain de Botton, ... keep away from Kant and Aristotle though... to much pain...)
 
  • #63
Actually, the magnetic field is very real. The "action at a distance" way of looking at electromagnetic phenomena has been shown to be false: if you have two charge distributions in vacuum, and you change one of them (move charges around), the resulting "information" (i.e. the forces on the other charge distribution) does not immediately reach the other charge distribution. There is a finite transfer time of signals, equal to the speed of light.

So what entity transfers information between the charge distributions? There's no material substance traveling between them, since we're dealing w/ vacuum. The electric and magnetic fields are the information carriers of electromagnetic phenomena: they store energy and transfer momentum.
 
  • #64
1) The most reasonable position seems to be to accept that you are a limited human being...as we all are...and thus we cannot find out some things...ever...such as empirically prove/disprove God...etc.

2) So far...Scientific Method IS THE BEST method of getting consistent results from empirical data...and physics being the most fundamental and rigorous science is the best possible way we have as of now to explain how everything works (be it in terms of models and approximations)

3) Physics more or less accepts on faith (as other sciences) that empirical data can yield knowledge...

BUT all other sciences go even further...they not only accept that on faith...they also accept on faith physics etc...and the more applied you go the more you accept on faith...

4) given your problems, you either can leave physics and go into philosophy (where you can question almost everything including empiricism etc.) etc. or stay here in physics (where you don't question empiricism but get more "real" results)...or maybe go into math. (but it has its own worries)...all other fields will yield to even further disappointment since the further you go from these 3 the more you have to accept on faith
 
  • #65
twofish-quant said:
Also if you find out that there are five or six equivalent ways of describing something, there is usually some extremely deep and abstract mathematical reason why.

I always think this is the coolest thing, explaining something mathematically several different ways.
vtakhist said:
1) The most reasonable position seems to be to accept that you are a limited human being...as we all are...and thus we cannot find out some things...ever...such as empirically prove/disprove God...etc.

2) So far...Scientific Method IS THE BEST method of getting consistent results from empirical data...and physics being the most fundamental and rigorous science is the best possible way we have as of now to explain how everything works (be it in terms of models and approximations)

3) Physics more or less accepts on faith (as other sciences) that empirical data can yield knowledge...

BUT all other sciences go even further...they not only accept that on faith...they also accept on faith physics etc...and the more applied you go the more you accept on faith...

4) given your problems, you either can leave physics and go into philosophy (where you can question almost everything including empiricism etc.) etc. or stay here in physics (where you don't question empiricism but get more "real" results)...or maybe go into math. (but it has its own worries)...all other fields will yield to even further disappointment since the further you go from these 3 the more you have to accept on faith

Excellent post, IMO.
 
  • #66
  • #67
It is safe to say that this thread has meandered way beyond "Academic Guidance".

It is done.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K