Is it always easy to pick up a new major

[Nano-Passion]

You can skip to the third paragraph if you would like. So I'll be attending Rutgers University in the fall, and I have to say I am extremely excited. I will major in physics and minor in math or perhaps double major in math.

Here is the thing-- I love too many things in science. I'm aiming to earn a research spot in physics in theory, my internship this summer is in the experimental side and I'm not completely fond of it, plus I like the math portion of things. I get the feeling that I'm also aiming to do theory in physics because it is incredibly competitive and I'm a stubborn mule that likes competition and wants to prove it to myself despite the odds.

In the all likely chance that I'm not cut out enough to compete in theory, I am thinking of switching fields. And I've said before, I like many things -- things like optics, plasma physics, and a variety of interdisciplinary fields. One of the interdisciplinary fields that catches my interest the most is in the interface of biology, physics, neuroscience, and computation; which I hope to study in if things don't work out. Now the question is, how long is it before you simply can't opt for another degree? I don't mind too much of the time "wasted," it is all fun to me really. I'm just worried about the point where things start crashing down.

 

[jbrussell93]

You can skip to the third paragraph if you would like. So I'll be attending Rutgers University in the fall, and I have to say I am extremely excited. I will major in physics and minor in math or perhaps double major in math.

Here is the thing-- I love too many things in science. I'm aiming to earn a research spot in physics in theory, my internship this summer is in the experimental side and I'm not completely fond of it, plus I like the math portion of things. I get the feeling that I'm also aiming to do theory in physics because it is incredibly competitive and I'm a stubborn mule that likes competition and wants to prove it to myself despite the odds.

In the all likely chance that I'm not cut out enough to compete in theory, I am thinking of switching fields. And I've said before, I like many things -- things like optics, plasma physics, and a variety of interdisciplinary fields. One of the interdisciplinary fields that catches my interest the most is in the interface of biology, physics, neuroscience, and computation; which I hope to study in if things don't work out. Now the question is, how long is it before you simply can't opt for another degree? I don't mind too much of the time "wasted," it is all fun to me really. I'm just worried about the point where things start crashing down.

I would have to say that if you don't mind "wasting" time or *MONEY*, then you shouldn't have to worry about things crashing down. The tough reality is, even though you may not care about these things right now, as time passes you likely will. In high school, I was planning on doing theoretical physics but convinced myself to try engineering, and guess what.. I like it! I found that I can only really focus on bettering myself and my studies when I have security in what I'm doing. As a biological engineering student I am working in a neurobiology lab making computational models based on the biophysics of neurons. You don't have to be a full blown theoretical physicist to work on theoretical problems. That's the cool thing about experimental sciences... they are very interdisciplinary and therefore you have many more options! Theoretical physics is what it is. It is very narrow and slow moving. People have been doing theoretical physics for a LONG time so it takes a while to get to the really cool stuff but with biophysics for example, the cool stuff is right there in front of you! (thumbs up for optics too!)

 

[chill_factor]

Before you say that you like theory, and commit to it, try SELF STUDYING an entire class from a book this summer. I'd suggest Classical Mechanics even, since that is conceptually most familiar, from whatever book your school uses. Try to do every problem in the book for which there's an answer, usually those will be odds. Before you say this is impossible: I'm doing this right now for graduate quantum and math methods.

Because here's the thing: self studying from a book with no teacher is pretty hard. Needs motivation, right? Needs strong will, right? Needs a strong background, and even then, you might have to constantly look at the answer to convince yourself that you're right, otherwise sometimes you get something, then you think it looks wrong, you change it, and it turns out you were right.

Well doing theoretical research is like trying to self study very hard things (much harder than graduate quantum mechanics or math methods. That's why they're in books, and research is not). But there's no book and no solution manual so you can't peek to see if your answer is right.

 

[Nano-Passion]

I would have to say that if you don't mind "wasting" time or *MONEY*, then you shouldn't have to worry about things crashing down.

Time isn't a big factor for me, I'm young and I have lots of it. And plus, it all feels to be a great use of my time.

The tough reality is, even though you may not care about these things right now, as time passes you likely will.

Well that may very well be true, but I have always wanted to be satisfy my need in knowing a lot of things. So if it turns out that physics isn't for me, then no problem-- that is just what I wanted so I can go ahead and learn other things as well.

In high school, I was planning on doing theoretical physics but convinced myself to try engineering, and guess what.. I like it! I found that I can only really focus on bettering myself and my studies when I have security in what I'm doing.

For me the exciting part is knowing that there is not much security, so it makes me work that much harder.

As a biological engineering student I am working in a neurobiology lab making computational models based on the biophysics of neurons.

That is awesome! That is something I might enter after physics.

You don't have to be a full blown theoretical physicist to work on theoretical problems. That's the cool thing about experimental sciences... they are very interdisciplinary and therefore you have many more options! Theoretical physics is what it is. It is very narrow and slow moving. People have been doing theoretical physics for a LONG time so it takes a while to get to the really cool stuff but with biophysics for example, the cool stuff is right there in front of you! (thumbs up for optics too!)

You make a very good point actually. I never thought about it that way.

 

[Nano-Passion]

One of the things that scares me is the thought of going back and trying to get another degree -- only to be rejected because I am a graduate. When you get a graduate degree, can you always go back to get an undergraduate degree?

Before you say that you like theory, and commit to it, try SELF STUDYING an entire class from a book this summer.

I'd suggest Classical Mechanics even, since that is conceptually most familiar, from whatever book your school uses. Try to do every problem in the book for which there's an answer, usually those will be odds.

Well I am. I originally started studying classical mechanics from Taylor, and it was a really interesting book with interesting problems. However, I stopped since I want to test out of differential equations and multivariable calculus next fall -- so I'm studying DE.

Before you say this is impossible: I'm doing this right now for graduate quantum and math methods.

Nice, what are you majoring in? What are you planning to enter once you graduate?

Because here's the thing: self studying from a book with no teacher is pretty hard. Needs motivation, right? Needs strong will, right? Needs a strong background, and even then, you might have to constantly look at the answer to convince yourself that you're right, otherwise sometimes you get something, then you think it looks wrong, you change it, and it turns out you were right.

Well doing theoretical research is like trying to self study very hard things (much harder than graduate quantum mechanics or math methods. That's why they're in books, and research is not). But there's no book and no solution manual so you can't peek to see if your answer is right.

Wow, thanks! I never thought about it in that manner. It is true, there are no answers in the back of the book for research.

And actually I am doing research right now, and I found it harder than self-studying. Often I get frustrated and I find it hard to resist the urge of getting up [I actually found that stretching helps release the tension]. Especially since my adviser took me out of my comfort zone and made me program.

 

[chiro]

If you are interested in multi-discplinary stuff, just position yourself in a way to do so.

You mention that you have a n advisor and you are starting to program: basically find the same kinds of opportunities that are not undergraduate programs.

If you show other people that you're capable, they are bound to at least take a look and consider what you've shown in the past.

By the time you finish a PhD, my guess is that you'll be so used to learning on your own out of necessity that learning anything new will almost be like breathing.

 

[Nano-Passion]

If you are interested in multi-discplinary stuff, just position yourself in a way to do so.

Well yes, for one I'm planning to audit a couple of interdisciplinary classes to get a feel for it and to test my interests here and there.

You mention that you have an advisor and you are starting to program: basically find the same kinds of opportunities that are not undergraduate programs.

I'm not completely following, are you telling me to do research that is interdisciplinary-oriented?

 

[chiro]

I'm not completely following, are you telling me to do research that is interdisciplinary-oriented?

Yes but not necessarily research: basically any opportunity that's available to you whether its research, or any part of your career.

Once you have shown that you can do this kind of thing over a period of time, it will be easier for you to get more opportunities because of what you have demonstrated in the past.

It's just the basic element of trust and reputation at work which are extremely important things for anyone in any kind of endeavor. If you can show people that you are good in interdisciplinary endeavors, can learn fast, have a good attitude in terms of learning things that you want to learn and also that you don't want to learn but have to, then people will see this.

Remember that everything is cumulative and the results of accumulation of the experiences are things that can be transferred to future things in so many ways that people will not be able to think of in the past or even directly in the present.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Yes but not necessarily research: basically any opportunity that's available to you whether its research, or any part of your career.

The thing I fear is that by doing research or other things that is not in physics, I am less competitive in physics.

Once you have shown that you can do this kind of thing over a period of time, it will be easier for you to get more opportunities because of what you have demonstrated in the past.

It's just the basic element of trust and reputation at work which are extremely important things for anyone in any kind of endeavor. If you can show people that you are good in interdisciplinary endeavors, can learn fast, have a good attitude in terms of learning things that you want to learn and also that you don't want to learn but have to, then people will see this.

Remember that everything is cumulative and the results of accumulation of the experiences are things that can be transferred to future things in so many ways that people will not be able to think of in the past or even directly in the present.

True, thanks.

 

[chiro]

The thing I fear is that by doing research or other things that is not in physics, I am less competitive in physics.

I'm not suggesting that you should deviate from the main focus as it would jeopardize later opportunities in relation to that focus, but to take opportunities that retain the focus but also offer opportunities to develop in other areas and build experience in those areas.

As you may be aware of, we get threads from physics PhD's who spend a lot of time programming and while the focus is not programming, part of the focus requires the necessary development of skills to get what needs to be done, done.

This is the kind of thing I recommend paying attention to: to look at opportunities in terms of not only what the main focus is, but what is also needed required to meet and support that focus. The stuff needed to support the focus is what you want to look at because it means that the focus doesn't change, but the opportunity to learn a lot of supplementary skills is now made clear and easy to analyze.

 

[Nano-Passion]

I'm not suggesting that you should deviate from the main focus as it would jeopardize later opportunities in relation to that focus, but to take opportunities that retain the focus but also offer opportunities to develop in other areas and build experience in those areas.

As you may be aware of, we get threads from physics PhD's who spend a lot of time programming and while the focus is not programming, part of the focus requires the necessary development of skills to get what needs to be done, done.

This is the kind of thing I recommend paying attention to: to look at opportunities in terms of not only what the main focus is, but what is also needed required to meet and support that focus. The stuff needed to support the focus is what you want to look at because it means that the focus doesn't change, but the opportunity to learn a lot of supplementary skills is now made clear and easy to analyze.

Well true, there are some skills that are always important in many fields. Things like numerical analysis, programming, knowledge of hardware, mathematical techniques, etc. are needed across a number of fields.

 

[chill_factor]

One of the things that scares me is the thought of going back and trying to get another degree -- only to be rejected because I am a graduate. When you get a graduate degree, can you always go back to get an undergraduate degree?

Well I am. I originally started studying classical mechanics from Taylor, and it was a really interesting book with interesting problems. However, I stopped since I want to test out of differential equations and multivariable calculus next fall -- so I'm studying DE.

Nice, what are you majoring in? What are you planning to enter once you graduate?



Wow, thanks! I never thought about it in that manner. It is true, there are no answers in the back of the book for research.

And actually I am doing research right now, and I found it harder than self-studying. Often I get frustrated and I find it hard to resist the urge of getting up [I actually found that stretching helps release the tension]. Especially since my adviser took me out of my comfort zone and made me program.

I am a grad student in physics. Nice to see you studying independently. It requires such strong will. At the grad level, the things you study are very theoretical (as in, little connection to experiment, and with great amounts of formalism). I think the undergrad physics curriculum is very useful and interesting, but the grad level stuff is, at least in quantum, is sort of very unconnected to concrete experimental results in terms of actual problem solving.

I also recommend frequent physical exercise.

 

[jbrussell93]

I also recommend frequent physical exercise.

Can you expand on your experience with this. I'm becoming concerned about not getting enough exercise and I'd like to be aware of some of the "warning signs".

 

[Nano-Passion]

I am a grad student in physics. Nice to see you studying independently. It requires such strong will.

Well part of the will comes from the fact that I'm not happy that I didn't pay attention to school for most of my life and that all I did was play video games and day dream in class. So I'm playing catch-up. The other part come because I find studying enjoyable and relaxing -- at times. Though I have to admit that many times it is frustrating and I would rather get up and do something else--but there is something pushing me from the back telling me to keep going.

At the grad level, the things you study are very theoretical (as in, little connection to experiment, and with great amounts of formalism). I think the undergrad physics curriculum is very useful and interesting, but the grad level stuff is, at least in quantum, is sort of very unconnected to concrete experimental results in terms of actual problem solving.

I also recommend frequent physical exercise.

I used to work-out a lot, in terms of lifting weights-- but I've stopped. I found the whole atmosphere of gyms incredibly egotistic -- as much as everyone liked to deny it. All I saw was envy or feelings of superiority in most people. Some people envied me and I could have continued on that path for the rest of my life, piling up more feelings of superiority and "confidence". But at one point I noticed it was all rather superficial and silly -- I would rather flex my brain muscles -- which is orders of magnitude stronger than other muscles.

But anyways, I'm going off on a tangent. Is frequent physical exercise really that important for your mind, as some have posited? How often is "frequent?"

 

[chill_factor]

Since physics is so ridiculously theoretical and far away from concrete experimental results (EM and statistical mechanics is sort of OK, but quantum is the worst offender in this aspect by far) you need to stop thinking about it sometimes and focus on other things. That's why I say you need frequent physical exercise.

What is frequent? Just little things like do 10 reps of curls every 90 minutes, or say 20 pushups every hour, like a reset on your brain, or even take a walk outside. Nothing big. Don't need to go to the gym, just buy or even make your own weights.

The important thing is to stop thinking, get out of physics/gaming/writing/whatever, and clear your head. Otherwise, the pressure will build until you crumble. Do not work straight for hours, that just burns you out. It is far better to put in half effort, barely pass, and keep at it for years, than to go all in, burn out and crumble.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Since physics is so ridiculously theoretical and far away from concrete experimental results (EM and statistical mechanics is sort of OK, but quantum is the worst offender in this aspect by far) you need to stop thinking about it sometimes and focus on other things. That's why I say you need frequent physical exercise.

What is frequent? Just little things like do 10 reps of curls every 90 minutes, or say 20 pushups every hour, like a reset on your brain, or even take a walk outside. Nothing big. Don't need to go to the gym, just buy or even make your own weights.

The important thing is to stop thinking, get out of physics/gaming/writing/whatever, and clear your head. Otherwise, the pressure will build until you crumble. Do not work straight for hours, that just burns you out. It is far better to put in half effort, barely pass, and keep at it for years, than to go all in, burn out and crumble.

I went and played tennis and spent most of my day outside today. =D I got to say though, I usually feel guilty after it all . It is a mixed feeling of guilt and contempt-- quite weird actually.

 

[chill_factor]

I went and played tennis and spent most of my day outside today. =D I got to say though, I usually feel guilty after it all . It is a mixed feeling of guilt and contempt-- quite weird actually.

Don't feel guilty. If you have to play tennis to stay awake and focus, just do it. Anything relaxing that prevents a mental crash and doesn't affect your work too negatively is good.

If you are doing theoretical work, remembering to rest is more important, because there's no unambiguous "break time". When you're working in the lab, and say, the X-ray diffractometer is taking readings. That is break time. There's absolutely nothing you can do while that's happening other than prepare other samples or read journals or analyze data or screw around or something, so you are forced to take a break, at least momentarily to walk back to your desk.

In theory, you can "theoretically" work 24/7, and if you don't remember to relax, you WILL be working 24/7, you'll burn out and crash.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Don't feel guilty. If you have to play tennis to stay awake and focus, just do it. Anything relaxing that prevents a mental crash and doesn't affect your work too negatively is good.

If you are doing theoretical work, remembering to rest is more important, because there's no unambiguous "break time". When you're working in the lab, and say, the X-ray diffractometer is taking readings. That is break time. There's absolutely nothing you can do while that's happening other than prepare other samples or read journals or analyze data or screw around or something, so you are forced to take a break, at least momentarily to walk back to your desk.

In theory, you can "theoretically" work 24/7, and if you don't remember to relax, you WILL be working 24/7, you'll burn out and crash.

Hey, I'm really sorry for the late reply!

I've took a huge break this week actually due to a couple reasons-- felt pretty good. :D

Also, I would like to change what I've said about experimental work in physics. It is rather fun once you get to the meat of things, I just had a negative initial experience.

At any rate, I don't feel that my question has been satisfied, so to speak. I realize that interdisciplinary fields (let us say neurophysics for example) may give you a job if they see you are competent-- but are you really competitive enough to get one if your only have experience in math and physics?

How about getting another degree once you get a PhD, can you always go back and get a bachelors in say neuroscience? What are some problems that can spring in the way? I can imagine scholarships and money being one.

 

[zapz]

Im not entirely sure, and this is basically things I've heard from professors and family, but it seems that it looks bad to get too many degrees. I think its viewed as a point where the person just didn't know what to do. Also if you have a phd in physical, one could theoretically be able to self teach an undergrad curriculum.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Im not entirely sure, and this is basically things I've heard from professors and family, but it seems that it looks bad to get too many degrees. I think its viewed as a point where the person just didn't know what to do. Also if you have a phd in physical, one could theoretically be able to self teach an undergrad curriculum.

Oh yes absolutely, you should be able to independently learn the material -- but what about convincing people that you know the relevant material enough to be employed in said field? Saying I independently learned x,y,z is usually meaningless in that context.

I suppose I can go for my PhD and hope for the best. There have been a few physicist who ended up researching in biophysics for example, even with little to no background in biology -- just shows how flexible we are.

 

[astor]

post docs can transition you. don't forget those.

i know of a few phd physicists who did their postdocs and are now in different departments, including biophysics, chemical biology, and even engineering.

one good thing about phd is that in having gone through the work for one, you have proved a significant amount of independent discipline required to accomplish what you needed to do, so when you do say you independently learned something, it should carry more weight than if an underclassman in college said such a thing.

after all, it's pretty independent when you're reading up on literature to stay up to date with the latest. you don't need to get 'credits' for reading journals to prove to someone that you're not stuck in the stone age sciences.

 

[astor]

also, realize that someone in biophysics might not require the breadth of knowledge that someone purely in biology requires. when you tend to narrow down your field in conducting research, you narrow down to the subfield that is required; you wouldn't need to attain the breadth of say, ecology or evolutionary biology, if you switched to biophysics to study the physics of biological transport phenomena.

just don't want you to get too big an ego and think that physics is so flexible that you are a master of all. naturally, in research, you are biased since you are more narrow.

 

[jbrussell93]

I suppose I can go for my PhD and hope for the best. There have been a few physicist who ended up researching in biophysics for example, even with little to no background in biology -- just shows how flexible we are.

I have been told that you DO NOT need a background in biology to do biophysics with a physics BS. After talking to a biophysics professor at my university, I was told that it is a waste of time to take any biology classes as an undergrad (or graduate) for that matter. Her graduate adviser told her that she could just crack open a biology book and read a chapter to learn how proteins are made. You do not have to take a class and MEMORIZE every step of the process and know all of the amino acids by name. I was told that (organic) chemistry and biochemistry are much more helpful than biology when it comes to biophysics.

I both agree and disagree with this. While it may be a waste to spend too much time gaining a broad sense of knowledge of biology, I believe that it is good to have some specialized knowledge of the branch of biology that you wish to focus in for biophysics. There are three reasons for this:

1. You must know how to communicate with biologists!
2. Knowing how everything fits together helps you find where the interesting questions are
3. Learning broadly about different fields of biology will help you narrow down to the branch that interests you most. For me, that is neuroscience. For others, it may cell biology, molecular biology, genomics, proteomics, etc.. But you will not know, until you test out what each has to offer. Also, a question in one branch may cross over into another branch. For example, the mechanics of cells rely on proteins so you must know how they interact.

 

[Nano-Passion]

I'm sorry if I gave out the idea that I'll likely go into biophysics after -- I was using it as an example. It is interesting to me, but not a priority. What I'm really interested in is the interface of neuroscience, physics, and computation -- or maybe just neuroscience and computation.

post docs can transition you. don't forget those.

i know of a few phd physicists who did their postdocs and are now in different departments, including biophysics, chemical biology, and even engineering.

one good thing about phd is that in having gone through the work for one, you have proved a significant amount of independent discipline required to accomplish what you needed to do, so when you do say you independently learned something, it should carry more weight than if an underclassman in college said such a thing.

after all, it's pretty independent when you're reading up on literature to stay up to date with the latest. you don't need to get 'credits' for reading journals to prove to someone that you're not stuck in the stone age sciences.

Very good points.

also, realize that someone in biophysics might not require the breadth of knowledge that someone purely in biology requires. when you tend to narrow down your field in conducting research, you narrow down to the subfield that is required; you wouldn't need to attain the breadth of say, ecology or evolutionary biology, if you switched to biophysics to study the physics of biological transport phenomena.

just don't want you to get too big an ego and think that physics is so flexible that you are a master of all. naturally, in research, you are biased since you are more narrow.

Oh no, I'm sorry if I gave out that vibe. The physicist in biology usually has some very rudimentary understanding, not even comparable to an undergraduate level biologist. I was just trying to point out that we are flexible in terms of job prospect.

I have been told that you DO NOT need a background in biology to do biophysics with a physics BS. After talking to a biophysics professor at my university, I was told that it is a waste of time to take any biology classes as an undergrad (or graduate) for that matter. Her graduate adviser told her that she could just crack open a biology book and read a chapter to learn how proteins are made. You do not have to take a class and MEMORIZE every step of the process and know all of the amino acids by name. I was told that (organic) chemistry and biochemistry are much more helpful than biology when it comes to biophysics.

I both agree and disagree with this. While it may be a waste to spend too much time gaining a broad sense of knowledge of biology, I believe that it is good to have some specialized knowledge of the branch of biology that you wish to focus in for biophysics. There are three reasons for this:

1. You must know how to communicate with biologists!
2. Knowing how everything fits together helps you find where the interesting questions are
3. Learning broadly about different fields of biology will help you narrow down to the branch that interests you most. For me, that is neuroscience. For others, it may cell biology, molecular biology, genomics, proteomics, etc.. But you will not know, until you test out what each has to offer. Also, a question in one branch may cross over into another branch. For example, the mechanics of cells rely on proteins so you must know how they interact.

Spot on! It isn't enough to just manipulate a few equations.