Unsure how dedicated I am to pure physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter malignant
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics Pure
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the dilemma faced by a third-year physics student torn between pursuing computational physics and traditional physics. The student expresses a strong interest in advanced physics but also concerns about employability, particularly stemming from a background of poverty. There is a notion that a lack of unwavering passion for pure physics might indicate a need for a more practical career path, such as medical physics. Participants emphasize the importance of foundational physics knowledge, arguing that computational skills can be acquired independently and do not necessarily require formal coursework. They suggest that a solid understanding of basic physics is crucial for roles in Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) and that many employers prioritize theoretical knowledge over coding skills. The discussion also touches on the potential challenges of transitioning from a master's in computational physics to a PhD in traditional physics, highlighting that course selection may impact the duration of the PhD program. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the idea that pursuing pure physics while supplementing with self-taught computational skills could be a beneficial approach.
malignant
Messages
40
Reaction score
1
I'm a third year physics student and I can't decide between computational-based physics and plain physics. I've taken a few programming courses and have been programming as a hobby since I was around 12. I originally wanted to do a lot of math and physics to apply it to programming for graphics and the physics etc but eventually slowed down on the programming stuff and became very interested in the more advanced physics.

Maybe the act of wondering which one I should do already gives me the answer that I'm not dedicated enough to do pure physics, but it could be that I'm wondering out of fear and am inclined to pick something more employable which is natural since I grew up in poverty.

So I'm wondering, is physics not worth doing if I'm not absolutely sure it's the only thing I'd want to do? I do spend a considerable amount of free time on physics, but it seems like most people that choose pure physics can't even picture themselves doing something different. I was even dabbling with the idea of medical physics. That for sure was out of fear of not being employable, though.

Also, if I obtain a masters in computational physics instead of physics, would it require a lot of extra time to then pursue a phd in regular physics? It does leave out a considerable amount of advanced physics courses but I'm not sure if courses are even a major factor in how long a phd takes.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You might want to look at Applied Physics graduate programs. For example:
http://www-applied.physics.lsa.umich.edu/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
first of all , you should be really really lucky you started as an undergrad in Physics , when everyone here in India told me Physics degree is a waste of time with no job prospects, as expected , i bogged down and took mechanical engineering degree and later found out Baby physics = Engineering! , Now some months ago ,i came through this http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/#data=2|||0 {open with Internet Explorer} n my life turned upside down for regreting not to take physics in undergrad , now i am reading all feyman lectures available here http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

ok enuf abt my story ,As far as my experience with ANSYS ,DYMOLA , APROS and MODELICA some small analogy can be again understood that computation is mostly a code and a theory combined , now again this theory come from Basic physics only ! Now even if you would look at the Scientist hired by CAE companies are mostly from Basic Physics , the development of CAE softwares started long before this course " Computational Physics " was born ,

Also a CAE ( Computer Aided Engineering) company wud hire you only for that Basic theory which u wud give/ understand properly n wud provide the rough Algorithm for that and not for coding ( there are zillions of coders ready to do that job )

I would advice to stick to Basic Physics ( Code u can do urself without getting into a course )
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
avinashbaliyan said:
first of all , you should be really really lucky you started as an undergrad in Physics , when everyone here in India told me Physics degree is a waste of time with no job prospects, as expected , i bogged down and took mechanical engineering degree and later found out Baby physics = Engineering! , Now some months ago ,i came through this http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/#data=2|||0 {open with Internet Explorer} n my life turned upside down for regreting not to take physics in undergrad , now i am reading all feyman lectures available here http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

ok enuf abt my story ,As far as my experience with ANSYS ,DYMOLA , APROS and MODELICA some small analogy can be again understood that computation is mostly a code and a theory combined , now again this theory come from Basic physics only ! Now even if you would look at the Scientist hired by CAE companies are mostly from Basic Physics , the development of CAE softwares started long before this course " Computational Physics " was born ,

Also a CAE ( Computer Aided Engineering) company wud hire you only for that Basic theory which u wud give/ understand properly n wud provide the rough Algorithm for that and not for coding ( there are zillions of coders ready to do that job )

I would advice to stick to Basic Physics ( Code u can do urself without getting into a course )


Hmm I see what you're saying. So the coding education isn't that important to have on paper? I wonder if it'll be difficult to find resources for the high performance scientific computing stuff. Those seem to be the most useful classes in the computational branch of physics.
 
malignant said:
Hmm I see what you're saying. So the coding education isn't that important to have on paper? I wonder if it'll be difficult to find resources for the high performance scientific computing stuff. Those seem to be the most useful classes in the computational branch of physics.

I think even if you don't take the classes on coding, it is possible to learn them outside through some other education centers. I am sure they would be in your country, like a diploma or something. It is a good decision to stick with pure physics and learn the computational part aside, as it an extra work load. But if you can and would love it, then you should take those classes.
 
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
Yesterday, 9/5/2025, when I was surfing, I found an article The Schwarzschild solution contains three problems, which can be easily solved - Journal of King Saud University - Science ABUNDANCE ESTIMATION IN AN ARID ENVIRONMENT https://jksus.org/the-schwarzschild-solution-contains-three-problems-which-can-be-easily-solved/ that has the derivation of a line element as a corrected version of the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equation. This article's date received is 2022-11-15...

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
790
Replies
32
Views
382
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top