Getting into physics after computer engineering

[maverick280857]

Please also tell me, are there non-educational institutes which are into fundamental research (I mean not in industrial or applied research)?

What do you mean by non-educational institutes? Pure science usually has limited (if any) immediate applications, and research into it is usually pursued in universities. Also I don't know what you mean by "fundamental research" versus not-so-fundamental research. I assume by fundamental you mean stuff that's not geared toward industrial applications.

And what do theoretical physicist who wants to do fundamental research do for rest of their life? Just fundamental research or fundamental research with teaching or something else also?

What do they do for the rest of their lives? Usually physics, unless they diversify into quantitative finance or something else :-). If you end up working in a university, you will have to teach. If you get into a research lab, then you won't..but then you may no

And how much do they earn approximately?

Sorry, I have no idea. IMHO, it's also one of those things which shouldn't deter you from doing a phd in physics if that is what you really want to do :-)

 

[maverick280857]

Hey maverick, I read some of your other posts and saw you went from EE to physics. I'm an EE and curious about how difficult the switch was.

Academically, it wasn't difficult. But it was a silly PR/HR job (still is, sometimes) to convince people that I really knew my physics, and wasn't intending to credit a course just because I had been absolutely thrilled reading The Elegant Universe. :-)

Did you take many physics classes during your EE undergrad?

I took two courses on quantum mechanics, one course on special and general relativity, one course on quantum field theory and one course on particle physics, all from the physics department. These courses, especially QM, helped me immensely in EE too. If you have limited options, you should definitely take QM and if possible, study QFT.

Did you do any undergrad research in physics or EE? Is there anything you would have done differently?

If by research you mean publishable research, then no. I did some project work in both EE as well as physics, and my senior thesis involved a fair amount of both. So, that's definitely one thing I would have done differently -- exploring an REU, doing publishable research in a focused way, and visiting more places to do summer research. From the point of view of getting into a grad school for physics, these things do more become important if you're not a native physics student.

 

[arpit2agrawal]

What do you mean by non-educational institutes? Pure science usually has limited (if any) immediate applications, and research into it is usually pursued in universities. Also I don't know what you mean by "fundamental research" versus not-so-fundamental research. I assume by fundamental you mean stuff that's not geared toward industrial applications.

By non-educational institutes, I mean institutes where degree programs are not offered and still they do research, like NASA (I assume NASA is not into providing bachelors or PhD degree program).
Somebody told me that things like research in quantum physics (like telepathy or quantum computer), dark energy, dark matter, time travel, etc. (all these things, I call as "fundamental research") have hardly any industrial application at this stage. I think if that is the case, why would any company invest its man power, money and other resources in it, am I right? I think you realize now what kind of research I wish to go into. For instance Mr. Ronald Mallett from Univesity of Connecticut made a model of time machine in 2006 although he didn't make a full-fledged time machine for reasons I am not aware of.

What do they do for the rest of their lives? Usually physics, unless they diversify into quantitative finance or something else :-). If you end up working in a university, you will have to teach. If you get into a research lab, then you won't..but then you may no

I am keen to work in a research lab (that's what I mean by "non-educational research institute") so that I won't have to teach and I can do research full-time. But do you know any research lab where I can do kinds of research I mentioned above?

Sorry, I have no idea. IMHO, it's also one of those things which shouldn't deter you from doing a phd in physics if that is what you really want to do :-)

Yes. Nothing can stop me from going into Physics research. I know I'll earn at least to live a comfortable life if not very luxurious. But I am just curious to know about salary and all. I read on some websites that a PhD physicist earn about US$80000 per annum and just wanted to confirm it.

 

[maverick280857]

Somebody told me that things like research in quantum physics (like telepathy or quantum computer), dark energy, dark matter, time travel, etc. (all these things, I call as "fundamental research") have hardly any industrial application at this stage. I think if that is the case, why would any company invest its man power, money and other resources in it, am I right?

I think you posed and answered your question yourself.

Telepathy and time travel are mostly pseudoscientific, whereas quantum computing is a well established albeit under-development area of physics. It is absurd to club them together. Quantum physics has nothing to do with 'telepathy' as far as I know

I am keen to work in a research lab (that's what I mean by "non-educational research institute") so that I won't have to teach and I can do research full-time.

First of all, you should realize that you will spend at least a few months of your time teaching, while you're a PhD student. I don't understand why people are unwilling to pursue a career in teaching, especially when it is widely established that teaching closes the loop in your own learning.

Nevertheless, I think we're getting too ahead of ourselves...you will be doing research full time as a postdoc (which is a job in every way, btw). And then you can enroll as a research professor, or a scientist in an existing laboratory at a university, if you so wish.

But do you know any research lab where I can do kinds of research I mentioned above?

There may be a few places still around which are able to balance fundamental research with applied research enough so that advancements in the latter fund the former, and there are a few benefactors interested in giving their money to them. But given the economic situation, I do not see them flourishing in the next 5-10 years. Teaching is usually perceived as a duty to academia.

 

[arpit2agrawal]

Telepathy and time travel are mostly pseudoscientific, whereas quantum computing is a well established albeit under-development area of physics. It is absurd to club them together. Quantum physics has nothing to do with 'telepathy' as far as I know

Everybody knows that time travel is possible at high speed or near very massive bodies. All satellites, space ships etc. travel in time (might be few nano or microseconds per second which is significant enough to distort communication frequency and designer of satellites take care of this). It's just that we have to find a third way of time travel which is feasible and give much more noticeable results. And who knows, somebody might just discover it. Last year, I saw one hour program on Discovery channel (or National Geographic, I don't remember) about time travel. They interviewed many scientists who are working on this. I have one hour video of that. I can upload if you are interested in watching it.

Regarding telepathy, while studying "Quantum entanglement", I saw that if we make two particles which are quantum entangled (may be by process reverse of annihilation), take one particle to India and other to USA, and do something to particle in India, then wave function of particle in USA collapses immediately. Information is traveled at an infinite speed (even more than speed of light). Nobody knows how, but it is "telepathy" and I think this will change the complete current telecommunication technology. Watch this 1 minute animation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk"

First of all, you should realize that you will spend at least a few months of your time teaching, while you're a PhD student. I don't understand why people are unwilling to pursue a career in teaching, especially when it is widely established that teaching closes the loop in your own learning.

Actually I love teaching. I did teach systems programming in a Pune based institute during my bachelors. It's just that I am keen to devote maximum time of my life in during research. After all, nature gives us "only" around 50 years to do something! :)

Nevertheless, I think we're getting too ahead of ourselves...you will be doing research full time as a postdoc (which is a job in every way, btw). And then you can enroll as a research professor, or a scientist in an existing laboratory at a university, if you so wish.

Okay. Thank you so much for the guidance. Your advice and information is indeed useful for me.

 

[maverick280857]

Based on everything you have written here since your first post, I think it would be best for you to spend time at a university within the country first improving your hold on undergrad physics, before applying to grad school in the US. Popular science is a good way to develop an interest in physics, especially the "hot" areas, but a firm grasp on the ground is simply unavoidable if you want to pursue any kind of serious research in a sustained way (as you say you do).

The pillars are: classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, classical electrodynamics and statistical mechanics. Anything newer or fancy can be safely (and ideally) postponed to a later stage. If you are unable to pursue these yourself to the level of adequacy necessary for taking (and passing) the qualifying examination (not the PGRE) at a physics grad school of your choice, then you are not yet fit to directly advance to grad school for physics. Remember that you have to make up for a full year or two of advanced undergrad physics courses you did not take. This is what ZapperZ suggested, and I totally agree with him.

SINP has a 1 year initiation program which might help, and spending time as an RA in (say) TIFR, HRI, IMSc, CMI while taking their courses on these subjects may be even more beneficial. Also, how about walking over to the physics department at IITB (in your neighborhood) and auditing classes there for a year or so, while doing a project to learn things while you prepare for grad school..

 

[arpit2agrawal]

Based on everything you have written here since your first post, I think it would be best for you to spend time at a university within the country first improving your hold on undergrad physics, before applying to grad school in the US. Popular science is a good way to develop an interest in physics, especially the "hot" areas, but a firm grasp on the ground is simply unavoidable if you want to pursue any kind of serious research in a sustained way (as you say you do).

The pillars are: classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, classical electrodynamics and statistical mechanics. Anything newer or fancy can be safely (and ideally) postponed to a later stage. If you are unable to pursue these yourself to the level of adequacy necessary for taking (and passing) the qualifying examination (not the PGRE) at a physics grad school of your choice, then you are not yet fit to directly advance to grad school for physics. Remember that you have to make up for a full year or two of advanced undergrad physics courses you did not take. This is what ZapperZ suggested, and I totally agree with him.

I am not one of those who just get amazed by things like time travel or telepathy and all and go to pursue career in physics. I'll tell you what I have studied, please advice me than, if you still say the same, I'll do it. I have studied all pillars you said. I have watched lectures and solved almost all assignments and exams (correctly) give in this MIT Open Course Ware Physics bachelor program:
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/
for following courses:
8.01 Physics I Classical Mechanics
8.02 Physics II Electricity and Magnetism
8.03 Physics III: Vibrations and Waves
8.04 Quantum Physics I
8.044 Statistical Physics I
I also did read and understand almost every page of following books (and solved many problems correctly given after every chapter):
Physics for Engineers and Scientists by Hans C. Ohanian, John T. Markert (classical mechanics volume)
Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics by Douglas C. Giancoli (all volumes including electricity and magnetism, thermodynamics, modern physics and excluding some classical mechanics chapters since I already read those from above book)
An Introduction to Quantum Physics by A.P.French and Edwin F. Taylor (dedicated 650 pages quantum physics book)
and these books partly:
Thermal Physics by Ralph Baierlein (dedicated 400 pages thermodynamics book)
After doing all that, I feel that I can solve any problem of MIT Physics bachelors exam (of courses mentioned above) and any problem given after any chapter of above mentioned books. After my engineering, I spent 3 years in my hometown (due to family reasons and I am from a very small city) during which I did all these. Please advise me now, is it appropriate for me to go for PhD (or masters cum PhD program) in US university, or should I go for PhD program in IISc, Bangalore or something else.

SINP has a 1 year initiation program which might help, and spending time as an RA in (say) TIFR, HRI, IMSc, CMI while taking their courses on these subjects may be even more beneficial. Also, how about walking over to the physics department at IITB (in your neighborhood) and auditing classes there for a year or so, while doing a project to learn things while you prepare for grad school..

I already applied for RA in some institutes and one Pune based physics research company also called me for interview and they were very impressed by my knowledge. They also offered my internship but I didn't join since now I am studying for general GRE in my hometown. I'll surely join some institute in the future.

 

[mal4mac]

What about the UK? Given the historical connections it might be an easier "fit" than the US, and you might find it easier to get scholarships. Check out MSc conversion courses. Search for specific subjects that interest you, some are very specialised and at the border between physics & computing engineering, e.g:

http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/masters/msc-nano

Start the Week (9am, Radio 4, BBC...) had a fascinating discussion of Indian science, there's a book out called "Geek Nation: How Indian Science is Taking Over the World" - India seems a great place to study science at the moment! So why move? One answer might be because *we want you* - one fact from this program - 1/5 of UK NHS doctors are of Indian origin! (Including my GP...)

 

[arpit2agrawal]

India seems a great place to study science at the moment! So why move?

Top 500 universities of the world has just 2 universities of India:
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore (rank 301-400)
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharakpur (rank 401-500)
while there are lots and lots of universities from US.
Check out here:
http://www.arwu.org/"
I think studying from even any of the top 50 US universities is far better than studying from India, as far as research career is concerned. I know, I know, it depends more on "you" as a student rather than university and all. But university infrastructure, professors, students, connections, etc. also do matter a lot. If I won't get US then my second option is UK. Let's see.

 

[DrummingAtom]

I took two courses on quantum mechanics, one course on special and general relativity, one course on quantum field theory and one course on particle physics, all from the physics department. These courses, especially QM, helped me immensely in EE too. If you have limited options, you should definitely take QM and if possible, study QFT.

Thanks so much, that's very helpful.

I notice you didn't mention E&M from the physics department, that's the one class I'm mildly worried about. Because most physics majors say that E&M was a very difficult class and usually the class that "learned what real physics is like." I'm scheduled to take E&M from the EE department in about a year. I want to try to convince my adviser to let me take it from the physics department but not sure if that's going to happen. Has E&M, in particular, caused any problems from a physics standpoint?

Regardless, I'll probably pick up a minor in physics and then have to take E&M from the physics department anyway. Just curious as to what your experience has been. Thanks again.

 

[maverick280857]

I notice you didn't mention E&M from the physics department, that's the one class I'm mildly worried about.

My school does not have an official minor program in physics, so I took all the physics courses I could credit, and audited the others. I audited a part of the Jackson-based EM course, but I found that I had covered the major material in my EE E&M class, the SR/GR course and the introductory QFT course. The Physics EM class did not have time to cover the really deep parts of Jackson such as scattering, diffraction, etc. so there seemed to be little point in persisting with it beyond a stage.

So, I spent most of my vacations working on small projects while the major focus was on reading Sakurai, Jackson, Goldstein, etc. and working out the problems. I figured if I wasn't able to do a formal course on everything, I might as well pick something up on my own. And my physics professors were generally very supportive and felt I could do the advanced courses well without having formally taken every prerequisite course on paper.

When you asked me if I could've done something differently then yes, maybe I could've spent the time reading books over vacations and learning stuff by myself, on REUs or publications, or something which would probably help you more in the propulsion stage to grad school. Speaking for myself, I do not find myself squirming from any math expression in a theoretical physics paper or book now, so I think the extra effort I put in myself was worth it, despite the apparent misuse of the vacations :-)

Because most physics majors say that E&M was a very difficult class and usually the class that "learned what real physics is like."

In my undergrad institution, Jackson and Griffiths are used for the EM course. I already took the Griffiths course in my freshman year, and then took an EE class on EM, which was based on Cheng, Ramo, etc. The real problem most people face imo, is the lack of a strong background for solving the differential equations which routinely appear in all kinds of boundary value problems. Having said that, Jackson is hard.

I'm scheduled to take E&M from the EE department in about a year. I want to try to convince my adviser to let me take it from the physics department but not sure if that's going to happen. Has E&M, in particular, caused any problems from a physics standpoint?

There are differences in both approaches. The EE course will be quite theoretical, but the focus will be on plotting the fields, solving relatively simpler problems, and not usually discussing things about energy. Also, the EE courses may not delve into radiation, which you do need if you want to really understand antennas. So you'll have to pick that stuff up from Jackson or other books. Also, the EE course will deal with transmission lines a lot typically, and the connection between transmission lines and circuit theory, lumped and distributed elements, etc. These are invaluable things for physicists to know, esp if they are working on nanoscale systems these days. But usually physics courses do not teach any of this.

Regardless, I'll probably pick up a minor in physics and then have to take E&M from the physics department anyway. Just curious as to what your experience has been.

I have an unconventional suggestion: if you can take both the EE course as well as the Jackson course, do it! Usually the physics course will leave you hating all the math, because you will probably have absolutely no intuition for the physics after wading through the dark arts of algebraic manipulations.

 

[arpit2agrawal]

Hey maverick280857, did you miss my post #37?

 

[maverick280857]

Hey maverick280857, did you miss my post #37?

I didn't. But I'm not sure what response you expected from me.

 

[arpit2agrawal]

Please advise me now, is it appropriate for me to go for PhD (or masters cum PhD program) in US university, or should I go for PhD program in IISc, Bangalore or something else.

I am really confused. I think I'll appear for both, general GRE and GATE and check to see which institution I get admit from and than take decision accordingly. I am applying for fall 2012. I'll post names of institution I get admit from, next year in this thread. May be then I'll get proper advice.

 

[DrummingAtom]

Thanks so much maverick, that was very helpful. It means a lot knowing that you've gone through this.

 

[maverick280857]

Thanks so much maverick, that was very helpful. It means a lot knowing that you've gone through this.

If physics is what you want to do eventually, just go ahead and study physics for your undergrad. Switching is possible, but neither assured nor guaranteed, and it isn't a good idea to aspire switching from day 1.

 

[DrummingAtom]

If physics is what you want to do eventually, just go ahead and study physics for your undergrad. Switching is possible, but neither assured nor guaranteed, and it isn't a good idea to aspire switching from day 1.

I know what you mean. It's still early in my undergrad so I haven't committed to either, I'll know which fits better after I get into some research group. I'm really in interested in the most physics-y EE fields and not just physics itself. All in all, I'd rather be slightly more engineer than physicist because then I would be a better fit for industry, which is my goal.

Just out of curiosity, when did you know you wanted to switch? Or should I say what happened that made you want to switch? Was it the late night physics problem sets? Haha

 

[maverick280857]

Just out of curiosity, when did you know you wanted to switch? Or should I say what happened that made you want to switch? Was it the late night physics problem sets? Haha

Nothing quite so dramatic. I wanted to study physics as a freshman, but didn't quite like the undergrad program and so stayed in EE. I thought of switching once, but I love electronics just as much as quantum field theory, and it wasn't something the physicists were able to do in my school ;-)

 

[arpit2agrawal]

Got following scores:

Subject GRE Physics:
940/990

General GRE:
800/800 quant
340/800 verbal
3.0 analytical writing

Just to remind, I have done Bachelors of Engineering in Computer Science.

Any chance of getting admit into PhD Physics program of top university like Harvard?

 

[TMFKAN64]

So, reiterating... you have a very good physics GRE score, but you have not taken any upper division physics courses at your university and have not done any physics research as an undergraduate?

I'm sorry, but you just don't look like a top prospect to me unless I am wrong about your background.

A good score could help you get in *somewhere*, of course, and I wouldn't give up on that.

 

[arpit2agrawal]

So, reiterating... you have a very good physics GRE score, but you have not taken any upper division physics courses at your university and have not done any physics research as an undergraduate?

I'm sorry, but you just don't look like a top prospect to me unless I am wrong about your background.

A good score could help you get in *somewhere*, of course, and I wouldn't give up on that.

So if I get "somewhere" and complete my Masters in Physics, will there be any scope for getting admit into PhD at top university like Harvard? (considering my bad GRE verbal score).

Also please suggest me some universities I should apply for Masters (a terminal masters degree).