A Research styles in different branches of Physics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the differing approaches to studying and teaching methods across various branches of theoretical physics, particularly between astronomy, cosmology, and particle physics. Astronomy often benefits from visual aids and relatable concepts, making it more accessible to the public, while cosmology and particle physics rely heavily on advanced mathematics, which can alienate non-specialists. The conversation also touches on the distinction between theoretical and experimental physics, emphasizing that each has unique practices and challenges. Additionally, the role of engineering in supporting scientific research is acknowledged, suggesting a collaborative dynamic in the scientific community. Overall, the perceived differences in research styles stem from the nature of the subjects and their communication methods.
plasmon
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
Are the standards of studying/teaching methods same across different branches of theoretical physics like particle, astronomy and cosmology? For example we observe a lot of tours, events and conferences in institutes of astronomy and astrophysics, whereas particle and cosmologists are mostly used to confine themselves in isolation and bury themselves in mathematical and computational analysis.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I wouldn't totally agree with you but I see where you are coming from. The reason for the perceived difference must be in the fact that aspects of astronomy etc. can be often communicated at a very simple level with the aid of images and reference to very 'mechanical' things like rocket engines and space travel. Otoh, Cosmology and Particle Physics both start off way beyond that level.
There is another point and that is that many people get the feeling that they are familiar with and understand what they are told by Astronomers, even when the don't actually get it. The other two disciplines can only really be communicated at the level of Maths and many people just don't want to go down that road.
That could sound like an elitist answer but I should point out that I am basically an Engineer so I am not part of any perceived Academic Elite group. (Note - none of 'em would be anywhere without a lot of help from us Engineers!)
 
  • Like
Likes plasmon and Dale
Consider theoretical physics versus experimental physics. How do those people spend their days? There are similarities and big differences. Then we have research science, educational science, science in support of engineering, engineering in support of science, and management of science. The pie can be sliced many ways.

I don't think "standards" is the best word to describe the differences.
 
anorlunda said:
Consider theoretical physics versus experimental physics. How do those people spend their days? There are similarities and big differences. Then we have research science, educational science, science in support of engineering, engineering in support of science, and management of science. The pie can be sliced many ways.

I don't think "standards" is the best word to describe the differences.
'
Researchers use "standards" to judge the field, in which they can work efficiently, i.e. work gets completed within time availibility of funds.
 
Last edited:
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks

Similar threads

Back
Top