Unsure how dedicated I am to pure physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter malignant
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics Pure
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the dilemma faced by a third-year physics student regarding the choice between pursuing pure physics and computational physics. Participants explore the implications of each path, including employability concerns and the nature of physics education.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • A third-year physics student expresses uncertainty about their dedication to pure physics versus computational physics, citing a background in programming and concerns about employability.
  • Some participants suggest exploring Applied Physics graduate programs as a potential compromise.
  • One participant shares their regret about not pursuing physics due to perceived job prospects, emphasizing the importance of basic physics knowledge in computational roles.
  • Another participant argues that coding skills can be self-taught and that a strong foundation in physics is more critical for roles in Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) than formal coding education.
  • There is a question about the necessity of formal coding classes for high-performance scientific computing and whether resources for self-education are available.
  • Some participants propose that sticking with pure physics while learning computational skills independently could be a beneficial approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the importance of formal education in coding versus a strong foundation in physics. There is no consensus on whether pursuing computational physics or sticking to pure physics is the better path, reflecting a range of personal experiences and opinions.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various educational resources and personal experiences, but there are unresolved questions about the impact of course selection on future academic paths, particularly regarding PhD requirements.

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   Reactions: 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K