Rough Draft of Statement of Purpose Physics PhD

[Student100]

Are you trying to say in the introductory paragraph I just wrote I got to specific about what type of research I wanted to do in graduate school and should instead briefly mention what I want to do and then talk about why rather then how I'm going to do it?

Your first paragraph should talk about why you want to study physics at all. There must be a reason you choose to do something as difficult as physics. What lead you down this path?

What you actually want to do in graduate school will be dictated by the program you're applying to, more or less.

 

[micromass]

I want you to be structured. Your current proposals are not very structured. Your entire letter should form a coherent part.
Remember, this is your only chance to "talk" to the admission committee directly. You need to convince them that they should admit you over somebody else. So far, I do not see that you have really done this.

Why do you want to be a physicist? Why do you want to be a researcher? Why do you want to be a professor? That is a really important question that I haven't seen a satisfactory answer to.

 

[harmony5]

The writing can be better of course but I want to make sure I have the right idea I wrote a paragraph where I tried to convey why I want to be a physicist, why I like research and why I want to be a professor. If I used to many words to convey the answers to those questions I would appreciate if someone can say so.

"

When I was young all I wanted was money so I decided to become a Hollywood actor. However, after the five years of schooling, I said ”who needs money when you have science”. What drew me to physics was its ability to give quantitative answers to questions I asked my biology teacher but she couldn’t answer. In college, I was to say the least a distinguished physics tutor. While other tutors showed students how to solve problems using Gauss’s law I would prove to my students Gauss’s law. Even though my students weren’t interested in the derivations I loved every second of it. This solidified that I wanted to be a professor. When I began doing research I loved how the more I knew about something the more question I’ve had. Research is the gift that keeps on giving, it never gets dull. Given my college experience I’m determined to become a research professor in theoretical physics."

 

[harmony5]

Now you just described your undergrad research. This is fine, but you only talked about it.
They want to know
- Why you want to grad school.
- What makes you a suitable candidate for their school.
- What you are interested in doing.

When you ask "What makes you a suitable candidate for their school." is that synonymous with explaining how my undergrad research experience has prepared me for research in graduate school. Or am I miss understanding what you are asking.

 

[Vanadium 50]

When I was young all I wanted was money so I decided to become a Hollywood actor.

And what does this have to do with the price of eggs? And it's very middle school.

However, after the five years of schooling, I said ”who needs money when you have science”.

No need to give this guy a fellowship! Also, another linevery middle school.

What drew me to physics was its ability to give quantitative answers to questions I asked my biology teacher but she couldn’t answer.

Disparaging past teachers is a dangerous strategy when trying to get a favorable decision from your future teachers. Just sayin'.

In college, I was to say the least a distinguished physics tutor.

This is not a sentence. You seem to be saying you were among the best. If your LOR' say this, it's not necessary. If your LORs don't say this, you look like someone who is overestimating his own competence. Neither helps your case.

Even though my students weren’t interested in the derivations I loved every second of it.

And this is good why? You're basically saying your approach to teaching is "it's all about me - to heck with my students!". And you are saying this to the group that is evaluating you for a teaching assistantship.

This solidified that I wanted to be a professor.

Contrary to popular belief. most professors actually do care about their students.

When I began doing research I loved how the more I knew about something the more question I’ve had.

Questions. And again, very middle school.

Research is the gift that keeps on giving, it never gets dull"

Also middle school.

Given my college experience I’m determined to become a research professor in theoretical physics."

OK now you finally get to the statement of purpose. This is the only sentence in the entire paragraph that actually helps you.

My advice is the same - stop writing these drafts until you know what you intend to say. Post an outline if you have to.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I feel this answers clearly why I want to go grad school, what I want to do in grad school and how I'm going to do it.

And the "how I am going to do it" is a problem. First, that's for the faculty to decide (another instance of coming across as naive and overconfident). Second, what you are saying is that before you have learned about the problem in detail, you will reject all but one solution. Does this sound like a good scientist to you? How do you think it will look to the committee?

 

[Dishsoap]

If I may, I'd like to interject with a question. I'm following this thread pretty closely as I seek advice on how to write my own personal statement. You said that the OP saying "the more research I do, the more questions I have" is a middle-school answer. I agree that it could definitely be phrased more eloquently, but is the reasoning in and of itself poor?

Likewise, the OP saying that he is a distinguished tutor you said sounds overconfident, and I agree. However, I mentioned this in my statement (distinguished tutor and TA) because I am having only one LoR written by someone at my university, and I have never tutored nor TA'd for him, though I have won awards for tutoring and TAing within the department. Should you therefore not mention this in your SoP, or just hope they read your CV?

 

[atyy]

@harmony5:

Are you familiar with the Weinberg-Witten theorem?

Are you familiar with the concept of quantum gravity as an effective field theory?

 

[Vanadium 50]

is the reasoning in and of itself poor?

I would say that if it is that general, yes. What would be better is "during my undergraduate project on x-ray diffraction, I became curious about crystalography" or something like that.

Have you seen the movie Animal House? There is a scene where the camera is on a statue of Emil Faber, founder of Faber College. Under his name is a quote, "Knowledge is Good". Why is that funny? Because it is so general as to be almost meaningless. Same problem here.

Should you therefore not mention this in your SoP, or just hope they read your CV?

Your SOP should be a statement of purpose. They will read your CV, and that's the place to put any awards.

 

[Student100]

Here is a quickie I did from some of your previous stuff just to kind of show you an outline.

"
My younger self was only interested in money; as such, my ideal future career revolved around how to make as much of it as possible. This changed, however, while attending [middle school/high school/university] classes. I feel in love with the sciences-physics in particular- for it's ability to quantitatively explain nature. The only future career I could convince of anymore was that of a theoretical research professor in physics.

My time as a physics undergrad has only further cemented this desire.

To help overcome the finical burden of university, I took a job as a physics tutor. While other tutors I worked with may have simply helped the students plug numbers into equations, I would try to guide them and remind them of the importance of the conceptual part of physics. We would walk through the derivations together, and I would point out the physical insight that could be gained from just the equations themselves! [maybe an example, but I don't really even like this tbh in it's current form.] My time tutoring showed me the great responsibility of teaching.

While taking [x classes, what you excelled at, what you did poorly at, how you over came challenges]

The advisement of [name of adviser] helped me to develop the tools I will need as a researcher. When we worked on [X's] research project[ S], [explain what you learned, what you didn't know, and what insights you gained, publication references if you also published], methods, his tutorship, etc.

The program at [X school], and [name of professor doing the work] fascinates me because of [x]. When we spoke through [email/phone] the problem of [x] intrigues me and I'd love to work on [some subset of x that is feasible for a graduate student] I would be a great fit [because why you'd be a good fit]
"

Just remember that you're trying to tell a story here, and that story is "Why should you give me 200K for school over equally qualified candidates. How you can show that you're not a waste of money or time, and how you will be successful as a researcher"

 

[harmony5]

@harmony5:

Are you familiar with the Weinberg-Witten theorem?

Are you familiar with the concept of quantum gravity as an effective field theory?

I wasn't familiar with the Weinberg-Witten theorem until I looked it up right now. In short it says graviton are incompatible with QFT. I'm also familiar that at low energies quantum gravity is an effective field theory.

 

[harmony5]

Here is a quickie I did from some of your previous stuff just to kind of show you an outline.

"
My younger self was only interested in money; as such, my ideal future career revolved around how to make as much of it as possible. This changed, however, while attending [middle school/high school/university] classes. I feel in love with the sciences-physics in particular- for it's ability to quantitatively explain nature. The only future career I could convince of anymore was that of a theoretical research professor in physics.

My time as a physics undergrad has only further cemented this desire.

To help overcome the finical burden of university, I took a job as a physics tutor. While other tutors I worked with may have simply helped the students plug numbers into equations, I would try to guide them and remind them of the importance of the conceptual part of physics. We would walk through the derivations together, and I would point out the physical insight that could be gained from just the equations themselves! [maybe an example, but I don't really even like this tbh in it's current form.] My time tutoring showed me the great responsibility of teaching.

While taking [x classes, what you excelled at, what you did poorly at, how you over came challenges]

The advisement of [name of adviser] helped me to develop the tools I will need as a researcher. When we worked on [X's] research project[ S], [explain what you learned, what you didn't know, and what insights you gained, publication references if you also published], methods, his tutorship, etc.

The program at [X school], and [name of professor doing the work] fascinates me because of [x]. When we spoke through [email/phone] the problem of [x] intrigues me and I'd love to work on [some subset of x that is feasible for a graduate student] I would be a great fit [because why you'd be a good fit]
"

Just remember that you're trying to tell a story here, and that story is "Why should you give me 200K for school over equally qualified candidates. How you can show that you're not a waste of money or time, and how you will be successful as a researcher"

I truly do appreciate the work and effort you put into this outline. It really is a wonderful outline. I'll certainly draw upon it in some way as I write my SoP.

 

[harmony5]

After taking everyone advice I produced this for my SoP. I brielfy mention what I want to do in grad school, I then talk about why I want to do it and what my purpose is for going to graduate school. Finally I talk about what I learned during my research rather then what I did. Unlike my last attempts I feel I don't come across as plain terrible and I don't rabbit hole myself to the point of sounding naive.

"My goal is to research whether or not the accelerated expansion of space can be accounted for by quantum fluctuations predicted in Quantum Field Theory (QFT). To answer this I want to conduct research in theoretical QFT. Specifically, I want to research the consequences of reformulating QFT with the assumption that space is quantized in light of the vacuum catastrophe.This problem is dear to me because it epitomizes everything I love about physics. What drew me into physics was how it answers questions with far-reaching implications using mathematics. The idea that mathematics with a few constraints can derive a theory explaining what we observe is immensely powerful. I also love how you can manipulate the mathematics of a theory to produce a new one or reinterpret an old oneIn college, I was a physics tutor who would show my students the derivation of equations as opposed to just applying them. What I enjoyed most from tutoring is seeing students faces light up when they understood something in more detail then they thought possible. In light of everything I want to become a professor and do research in theoretical physics.My research experience consists of working with professor “insert name” at the “insert university” for three semesters on the dynamics of physical double pendulum. (PDP) The experience matured my understanding of how research is conducted. Unlike in class where we learned about systems that have a perfect correspondence to their equations I found that in research that isn’t always the case.I learned the equations of motion I’m solving and animating are not equivalent to the PDP I built in the lab. In light of this I learned how to manipulate theoretical models so they can be more in line with what is actually being studied. Also, I learned many advanced mathematical and programming techniques that will be useful in whatever research I do in the future. Applying these techniques taught me how to extrapolate as much information as I can from a mathematical model.Professor “insert name” gave me a lot of freedom to analyze the dynamics of the PDP in a variety of ways. As a result, I decided to study the topological aspects of its phase space. While doing so, I learned the importance of using computational methods to witness the consequences of a theory. Prior to my research I downplayed the importance of numerical methods in theory. But after conducting my research I now strive to use computational methods to bring the theory I’m studying to life. "

 

[harmony5]

This is the gist of my concluding section. In the future I do plan to modify it because I'm going to talk to them in person sometime between now and december. Is this concluding section a good start. Also my SoP as of now is 616 words is that a appropriate length?"

The Graduate School of Arts and Science of New York University is a good fit for me because it hosts the Center For Cosmology and Particle Physics (CCPP.) My proposed research is at the intersections of cosmology and particle physics and the CCPP specialize in that type of research. Also, because I already live NYC I can devote more time to research and less time worrying about logistics.

Currently I’m interested in working with either professor Mathew Kleban or Roman Scoccimarro. Mathew Kleban research in quantum gravity interests me because it can shed light onto why QFT does not give the correct prediction for the energy density in the vacuum. Professor Scoccimarro research on modifying General Relativity (GR) to account for the cosmological constant is of great interest to me as well for similar reasons.

"

 

[radium]

the WW theorem relates to the restrictions you must put on a theory to get rid of the unphysical polarizations which do not transform in a Lorentz covariant way. With the photon you get the ward identity to get rid of this third unphysical polarization. A way to connect charge conservation in connection to Lorentz covariance is to look at the s matrix elements for p going to zero. You will see here that a spin 2 graviton would interact with everything like gravity, cannot be a composite particle, and lastly higher spin particles are overconstrained and have no dynamics.
The WW theorem doesn't apply to a lot of situations in the standard model however (nonabelian gauge theories) so it is not especially useful there. It does say if you started without gravity you could never get a massless graviton. I don't know too much else about this theorem since my field uses QFT in other contexts where we don't have Lorentz invariance a lot of the time. I do know that classical gravity is nonrenormalizable. You can't get rid of diverges by adding a finite number of counterterms like you can for QED so it breaks down at high energies (so does perturbation theory for QED).

I really am not convinced that you actually want to study quantum gravity. For one, you barely know the basics, and two you have no idea what the research entails. You can get some incredibly messy calculations in QFT, and if you haven't done them, you haven't gotten a full picture of the field. Also, don't mention your plans to solve quantum gravity because you know very little about it and it sounds very arrogant.

 

[harmony5]

the WW theorem relates to the restrictions you must put on a theory to get rid of the unphysical polarizations which do not transform in a Lorentz covariant way. With the photon you get the ward identity to get rid of this third unphysical polarization. A way to connect charge conservation in connection to Lorentz covariance is to look at the s matrix elements for p going to zero. You will see here that a spin 2 graviton would interact with everything like gravity, cannot be a composite particle, and lastly higher spin particles are overconstrained and have no dynamics.
The WW theorem doesn't apply to a lot of situations in the standard model however (nonabelian gauge theories) so it is not especially useful there. It does say if you started without gravity you could never get a massless graviton. I don't know too much else about this theorem since my field uses QFT in other contexts where we don't have Lorentz invariance a lot of the time. I do know that classical gravity is nonrenormalizable. You can't get rid of diverges by adding a finite number of counterterms like you can for QED so it breaks down at high energies (so does perturbation theory for QED).

I really am not convinced that you actually want to study quantum gravity. For one, you barely know the basics, and two you have no idea what the research entails. You can get some incredibly messy calculations in QFT, and if you haven't done them, you haven't gotten a full picture of the field. Also, don't mention your plans to solve quantum gravity because you know very little about it and it sounds very arrogant.

Where did I mention in my recent rendition of my SOP any plans what so ever to solve quantum gravity?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Where did I mention in my recent rendition of my SOP any plans what so ever to solve quantum gravity?

It's in your first post.

For example using a modified form of General Relativity to describe how gravity behaves on quantum scales.

And, while you have not specifically said "quantum gravity" in your latest post, you imply it strongly enough that any reasonable physicist will infer it.

The recent SOPs are good, in that they answer the questions asked and accurately represent your Purpose. I think achieving your Purpose will be quite difficult, as you want to enter one of the most competitive areas of physics with substantially less preparation than your peers, but if that's what you want to do, that's what you want to do.

 

[harmony5]

It's in your first post.
And, while you have not specifically said "quantum gravity" in your latest post, you imply it strongly enough that any reasonable physicist will infer it.

The recent SOPs are good, in that they answer the questions asked and accurately represent your Purpose. I think achieving your Purpose will be quite difficult, as you want to enter one of the most competitive areas of physics with substantially less preparation than your peers, but if that's what you want to do, that's what you want to do.

I do appreciate your honesty. It is true I was not a dual math and physics major. It is also true I have no research experience in QFT let alone quantum gravity. My department did not specialize in either of those field. But isn't graduate school supposed to prepare you to do that research? My GPA right now us 3.665 but I graduated Magna Cum Laude because my school enforces grade deflation. The only reason it isn't a 3.7+ is because of one bad semester. My last semester I had to complete 29 credits of course work and I got a 3.788. I feel I do have a strong application. I'm going to post one more SoP I wrote. It is thicker than this one but it I feel the added details help me. If not I'll change it.

 

[harmony5]

My goal is to research whether or not the accelerated expansion of space can be accounted for by quantum fluctuations predicted by Quantum Field Theory (QFT). To answer this I want conduct theoretical research into the consequences of reformulating QFT with the assumption that space is quantized in light of the vacuum catastrophe.This problem is dear to me because it epitomizes everything I love about physics. What drew me into physics was how it answers questions with far-reaching implications using mathematics. What cemented my desire to do research in theoretical physics was the process of manipulating the mathematics of a theory to produce a new one or reinterpret it. The idea that mathematics with a few constraints can derive a theory explaining what we observe is immensely powerful.In college my drive to become a professor and hence teach was introduced when I became a physics tutor. As a tutor I would show my students the derivation of equations as opposed to just applying them. What I enjoyed most from tutoring is seeing students faces light up when they understood something in more detail then they thought possible.Through hard work I became the physics Team Leader thus assuming the responsibility of making and grading mock exams. This task meant I had to understand on the grand scale what students who were taking the introductory physics sequence were struggling with so I can make appropriate exams. While as Team Leader I assumed many of the functions of a professor and enjoyed the experience. In light of everything I want to become a professor and conduct research in theoretical physics.My research experience consists of working with professor David Mugglin at the Polytechnic School of Engineering of New York University for three semesters on the dynamics of physical double pendulum. (PDP). The experience matured my understanding of how research is conducted. Unlike in class where we learned about systems that have a perfect correspondence to their equations I found that in research this isn’t always the case. I learned the equations of motion I’m solving and animating are not equivalent to the PDP I built in the lab. Unlike the system of nonlinear differential equations I numerically solved the PDP in the lab had air resistance, friction from the bearing and didn’t have two perfect degrees of freedom. In light of this I learned how to manipulate theoretical models so they can more accurately represent what is being studied. Also, I learned many advanced mathematical and programming techniques that will be useful in research I do in the future. Applying these techniques taught me how to extrapolate as much information as I can from a mathematical model.While conducting research, I also successfully completed a physics graduate class at the Graduate School of Arts and Science (GSAS). I further incorporated the theories and programming techniques I learned in that class in my research. During my last semester of research in order to graduate on time I had to complete 29 credits of course material plus work two jobs. That experience taught me how to manage time as efficiently as possible and distinguish important results or finding from trivial ones during research.Professor Mugglin gave me a lot of freedom to analyze the dynamics of a PDP. As a result, I decided to study the topological aspects of its phase space in terms of the KAM theorem so I can discern a route to chaos. In particular I made a Poincare section simulation, which demonstrated how invariant tori disintegrate as I varied a parameter. While doing so, I learned the importance of using computational methods to witness the consequences of a theory. Prior to my research I downplayed the importance of numerical methods in theory. But after conducting my research I now strive to use computational methods to bring the theory I’m studying to life.The GSAS of New York University is a good fit for me because it hosts the Center For Cosmology and Particle Physics (CCPP.) My proposed research is at the intersections of cosmology and particle physics and the CCPP specialize in that type of research. Also, because I already live NYC I can devote more time to research and less time worrying about logistics.Currently I’m interested in working with either professor Mathew Kleban or Roman Scoccimarro. Mathew Kleban research in quantum gravity interests me because it can shed light onto why QFT does not give the correct prediction for the energy density in the vacuum. Professor Scoccimarro research on modifying General Relativity (GR) to account for the cosmological constant is of great interest to me as well for similar reasons.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I feel I do have a strong application

Why do you think that?

A. Your GPA is good, but there are a lot better ones.
B. Your physics GRE is not good.
C. We can't see your letters, but "average" doesn't seem too far from the truth.
D. You were rejected from every school that you applied to.It's possible your application is strong, but the evidence here doesn't show it. And you want to enter one of the most competitive areas of physics with substantially less preparation than your peers. Like I said, if that's what you want to do, go for it. But it is far from guaranteed.

 

[harmony5]

Why do you think that?

A. Your GPA is good, but there are a lot better ones.
B. Your physics GRE is not good.
C. We can't see your letters, but "average" doesn't seem too far from the truth.
D. You were rejected from every school that you applied to.It's possible your application is strong, but the evidence here doesn't show it. And you want to enter one of the most competitive areas of physics with substantially less preparation than your peers. Like I said, if that's what you want to do, go for it. But it is far from guaranteed.

A: You can say that about any stat. I did graduate in the top ten percent of my class.
B: True that's why I'm retaking it
C: I've known all five professors for four years so I do expect excellent letters. I'm going to show them my SOP once it is a 100% complete and that will help make sure the letters further support my purpose.
D: I got rejected because I applied only to 4 schools. Also I didn't take a essential upper level core class at the time I applied.

Despite disagreeing with you on this I do appreciate your critiques and the critiques of others. Do you feel given what I've done in my undergrad the SoP I have above is the best I can possibly do or is it still lacking some essential elements? The last section will be slightly edited once I get into contact with those two professors.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don;t want to argue, but I will say two things: one is the only evidence we have from people who have seen the whole application is the four or five schools you applied to. You might want to consider those outcomes. The other is that students often grossly overestimate the strength of their LoR's. "Best student in my class this year" is a below-average LoR. Well below average.

 

[radium]

I think rather than providing a specific research question in cosmology/quantum gravity, you should just say what past developments caught your attention. For example, in the end of my GR class we talked about the expansion of the universe which is covered in GR books like MTW, Carroll, etc.

In my statement of purpose, I didn't mention specific research questions I was interested in. For example, I said I was interested in topic a because of what some people have been doing recently. I think I said something like there are proposals to realize Majorana fermions (topological states is one of my interests in my field) experimentally and there have been theoretical proposals to use them for quantum computing so I want to follow in those footsteps. That's more general than what you were doing.

If you have a lower GPA or PGRE, your going to need really strong research experience and letters to make up for it. Do you have any publications?

As I said before, a good way to gauge the quality of your recommendations is to ask the professors where you should apply. For example, when my professors mentioned really great schools, I knew they thought I had a good shot of being accepted and would write a great letter to help.

Overall, I think the content of your statement is getting better, but I am not very enthusiastic about your writing style. You state the obvious in a way that just sounds kind of juvenile

 

[harmony5]

I'll write a new more generalized intro to and see if it is better then the one I currently have. What in my latest statement is obvious and juvenile.?

 

[radium]

Not all of it is stating the obvious, a lot of your writing is just very verbose and needs to be cut. Phrases like "Through hard work", "successfully completed".
"The experience matured my understanding of how research is conducted. Unlike in class where we learned about systems that have a perfect correspondence to their equations I found that in research this isn’t always the case." This needs to be cut down significantly. It sounds like you are lecturing the reader and it just is unnecessary. Basically, for you I would say that you should cut anything that you think you said elegantly since the point is to be direct.

"This task meant I had to understand on the grand scale what students who were taking the introductory physics sequence were struggling with so I can make appropriate exams. While as Team Leader I assumed many of the functions of a professor and enjoyed the experience. In light of everything I want to become a professor and conduct research in theoretical physics."
I would not say you assumed many of the functions of a professor because you didn't. You can say that you were able to become very involved in running the course and enjoyed the experience, but a professor does much more than that.

 

[harmony5]

Not all of it is stating the obvious, a lot of your writing is just very verbose and needs to be cut. Phrases like "Through hard work", "successfully completed".
"The experience matured my understanding of how research is conducted. Unlike in class where we learned about systems that have a perfect correspondence to their equations I found that in research this isn’t always the case." This needs to be cut down significantly. It sounds like you are lecturing the reader and it just is unnecessary. Basically, for you I would say that you should cut anything that you think you said elegantly since the point is to be direct.

"This task meant I had to understand on the grand scale what students who were taking the introductory physics sequence were struggling with so I can make appropriate exams. While as Team Leader I assumed many of the functions of a professor and enjoyed the experience. In light of everything I want to become a professor and conduct research in theoretical physics."
I would not say you assumed many of the functions of a professor because you didn't. You can say that you were able to become very involved in running the course and enjoyed the experience, but a professor does much more than that.

You are right professor isn't the right word. Lecturer would be better. I'll take your advice and be more to the point and less eloquent.

 

[harmony5]

After taking some of Radium's advice I cut some of the fat from my SoP and made my purpose slightly more general. Do you feel that this SoP is a improvement over the one I before.

"My goal is to research whether or not the accelerated expansion of space can be accounted for by quantum fluctuations predicted by Quantum Field Theory. Recent work in modified gravity, such as the DGP model has spurred my interest in this problem because it can explain the observed acceleration of space without postulating dark energy. I would like to conduct theoretical research in these models to determine if they can explain the value of the cosmological constantIn college, my drive to become a professor, and hence teach began when I became a physics tutor. As a tutor, I would show my students the derivation of equations, as opposed to just applying them. What I enjoyed most from tutoring is seeing students' faces light up when they understood something in more detail than they thought possible. Eventually I became the physics tutors’ Team Leader, thus assuming the responsibility of making and grading mock exams. This meant I had to understand what students that were taking the introductory physics sequence were struggling with so I can make more appropriate exams. While I was Team Leader, I assumed many of the functions of a lecturer and enjoyed the experience. In light of everything I want to become a professor and conduct research in theoretical physics.My research experience consists of working with Professor David Mugglin at the New York University Polytechnic School of Engineering for three semesters on the dynamics of a physical double pendulum. (PDP). While doing research I learned invaluable lessons. For example the equations of motion I solved and animated are not equivalent to what I built in the lab. From considering this, I learned how to manipulate theoretical models so they can more accurately represent what is being studied. Also, I learned many advanced mathematical and programming techniques, which will be useful in research I do in the future. Applying these techniques taught me how to extract as much information as I can from a mathematical model.While conducting research, I completed a graduate physics class at the Graduate School of Arts and Science (GSAS). I further incorporated the theories and programming techniques I learned in that class in my research. During my last semester of research in order to graduate on time I had to complete 29 credits of course material while working two jobs. That experience taught me how to further manage time as efficiently as possible and distinguish important results or observations from trivial ones during research.Professor Mugglin gave me freedom to analyze the dynamics of a PDP. As a result, I decided to study the topological aspects of its phase space in terms of the KAM theorem. In particular, I made a Poincare section simulation that demonstrated how invariant tori disintegrated as I varied a parameter. While doing so, I learned the importance of using computational methods to witness the consequences of a theory. Prior to my research, I downplayed the importance of numerical methods in theory. But after conducting my research I now strive to use computational methods to bring the theory I’m studying to life.The GSAS of New York University is a good fit for me because it hosts the Center For Cosmology and Particle Physics (CCPP.) The CCPP has pioneered models, which explain cosmic acceleration without dark energy such as the DGP. As a result, it is the ideal place for me to conduct research in determining if dark energy is needed to explain cosmic expansion.
Currently, I’m interested in working with either professor Mathew Kleban or Roman Scoccimarro. Mathew Kleban’s research in quantum gravity interests me because it can shed light on why QFT does not give the correct prediction for the energy density in the vacuum. Professor Scoccimarro’s research on modifying General Relativity (GR) to account for the cosmological constant is of great interest because it can determine whether or not modified gravity can explain the value of the cosmological constant without dark energy.

"

 

[harmony5]

I added a paragraph which explained that I was actually part of a research group. Also I did some more edits as well to take out statements that one might view as stating the obvious.

"

My goal is to research whether or not the accelerated expansion of space can be accounted for by quantum fluctuations predicted by Quantum Field Theory. Recent work in modified gravity, such as the DGP model has spurred my interest in this problem because it can explain the observed acceleration of space without postulating dark energy. I would like to conduct theoretical research in these models to determine if they can explain the value of the cosmological constantIn college, my drive to become a professor, and hence teach began when I became a physics tutor. As a tutor, I would show my students the derivation of equations, as opposed to just applying them. What I enjoyed most from tutoring is seeing students' faces light up when they understood something in more detail than they thought possible. Eventually I became the physics tutors’ Team Leader, thus assuming the responsibility of making and grading mock exams. This meant I had to understand what students that were taking the introductory physics sequence were struggling with so I can make more appropriate exams. While I was Team Leader, I assumed many of the functions of a lecturer and enjoyed the experience. In light of everything I want to become a professor and conduct research in theoretical physics.
My research experience consists of working in Professor David Mugglin’s Chaos Theory research group for three semesters. I studied systems, which exhibited Hamiltonian Chaos most notably the Physical Double Pendulum (PDP). While doing research I learned invaluable lessons and gained the habit of constantly reading peer-reviewed physics journals. For example I understood that the equations of motion I solved and animated are not equivalent to the pendulum I built in the lab. From considering this, I learned how to manipulate theoretical models so they can more accurately represent what is being studied. Also, I learned many advanced mathematical and programming techniques. Applying these techniques taught me how to extract as much information as I can from a mathematical model.
Professor Mugglin gave me the freedom to analyze the PDP in anyway I wish. As a result, I decided to study the topological aspects of its phase space in terms of the KAM theorem. In particular, I made a Poincare section simulation that demonstrated how invariant tori disintegrated as I varied a parameter. While doing so, I learned the importance of using computational methods to witness the consequences of a theory. Prior to my research, I downplayed the importance of numerical methods in theory. But after conducting my research I now strive to use computational methods to bring the theory I’m studying to life.Other projects in his group included quantum chaos and hyperons orbit. I would attend weekly meeting discussing what progress everyone in the group was making. During these meetings I assisted my fellow undergraduate researchers in troubleshooting their code and in constructing programs to measure Lyapunov exponents. The meetings taught me how to clearly express the weekly to monthly results of my research. Also, I got to learn from others how they conducted their research and that enriched my own understanding.
While conducting research, I completed a graduate physics class at the Graduate School of Arts and Science (GSAS). I further incorporated the theories and programming techniques I learned in that class in my research. During my last semester of research in order to graduate on time I had to complete 29 credits of course material while working two jobs. That experience taught me how to further manage time as efficiently as possible and distinguish important results or observations from trivial ones during research.The GSAS of New York University is a good fit for me because it hosts the Center For Cosmology and Particle Physics (CCPP.) The CCPP has pioneered models, which explain cosmic acceleration without dark energy such as the DGP. As a result, it is the ideal place for me to conduct research in determining if dark energy is needed to explain cosmic expansion.Currently, I’m interested in working with either professor Mathew Kleban or Roman Scoccimarro. Mathew Kleban’s research in quantum gravity interests me because it can shed light on why QFT does not give the correct prediction for the energy density in the vacuum. Professor Scoccimarro’s research on modifying General Relativity to account for the cosmological constant is of great interest because it can determine whether or not modified gravity can explain the value of the cosmological constant without dark energy.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This still needs a lot of work. On style, you might remove at least 50% of the commas. Worse, it looks like you are trying to sound erudite. (Why do people try this? It doesn't make them sound smart - it makes them sound like Oswald Bates) This never works. Just sound like yourself and write like you talk.

As an example, "What I enjoyed most from tutoring is seeing students' faces light up when they understood something in more detail than they thought possible." Nobody talks like that. Worse, it's not true. About a week ago you said, "Even though my students weren’t interested in the derivations I loved every second of it." There is not much to be gained and a lot to be lost by embellishing.

 

[harmony5]

This still needs a lot of work. On style, you might remove at least 50% of the commas. Worse, it looks like you are trying to sound erudite. (Why do people try this? It doesn't make them sound smart - it makes them sound like Oswald Bates) This never works. Just sound like yourself and write like you talk.

As an example, "What I enjoyed most from tutoring is seeing students' faces light up when they understood something in more detail than they thought possible." Nobody talks like that. Worse, it's not true. About a week ago you said, "Even though my students weren’t interested in the derivations I loved every second of it." There is not much to be gained and a lot to be lost by embellishing.

I would like to clarify what I said was not true and shouldn't be taken at face value. I was trying to be funny but failed and sounded quite terrible. I was taking advantage of the sterotype that students who take introductory physics aren't interested in derivations and only want to plug and chug. I actually do greatly care if my students are paying attention and feel they are gaining something from the experience. The commas I will remove ASAP. I had to look up who Oswald Bates is and what erudite meant. Before when I was talking about perturbation theory and I sounded erudite but I heavily cut down on it. Can you please explain what you mean by sounding erudite.