Unsure how dedicated I am to pure physics

In summary, the conversation is about a third year physics student who is trying to decide between computational-based physics and plain physics. The student has taken some programming courses and has been programming as a hobby since a young age, but has become more interested in advanced physics. They are questioning whether they are dedicated enough for pure physics or if they are just choosing a more employable option out of fear. They are also wondering if obtaining a master's in computational physics instead of physics would require extra time to pursue a PhD in regular physics. The conversation also touches on the importance of coding education and the availability of resources for high performance scientific computing. Ultimately, it is suggested that the student stick with pure physics and learn the computational part separately.
  • #1
malignant
42
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
  • #2
You might want to look at Applied Physics graduate programs. For example:
http://www-applied.physics.lsa.umich.edu/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
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
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
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.
 

1. What is pure physics?

Pure physics is a branch of science that focuses on understanding the fundamental laws and principles governing the natural world. It involves studying concepts such as motion, energy, matter, and forces without any immediate practical applications.

2. How do I know if I am dedicated to pure physics?

Dedication to pure physics involves having a strong passion for understanding the fundamental workings of the universe, as well as a willingness to delve deep into complex theories and concepts. If you find yourself constantly curious and eager to learn more about the laws of nature, you may have a strong dedication to pure physics.

3. What are the benefits of studying pure physics?

Studying pure physics can lead to a deeper understanding of the world around us and can also lead to advancements in technology and other fields. It can also improve critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and provide a strong foundation for pursuing a career in research or academia.

4. Is pure physics a difficult subject to study?

Pure physics can be a challenging subject, as it involves learning complex mathematical and theoretical concepts. However, with dedication and perseverance, it can also be a highly rewarding and fulfilling field of study.

5. What career opportunities are available for those interested in pure physics?

A degree in pure physics can lead to various career options, including research positions in academia and government labs, teaching positions, and roles in industries such as engineering, technology, and healthcare. Additionally, pure physics can also open up opportunities for further specialization in fields such as astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and particle physics.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
855
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
964
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
668
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
903
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
1K
Back
Top