What Physics degree would be best for me?

[paisley666]

Sorry, but that's not a good idea. It's like biologists debating with creationists: it gives a lot of weight to the creationist argument. And then it is presented in the media as "a conflict in science", while there is no conflict at all and all scientists agree. Furthermore, scientists are busy people and there are a lot of crackpots.
That's just not true. You just can't dismiss a field that you haven't studied rigorously yet. If you do that, then you shouldn't study science. If you keep an open mind and actually study the thing in question as opposed to listening to the first guy who catches your attention, then you should have a bright future in science.

Ok thanks.

P.S. It was sarcasm.

 

[micromass]

P.S. It was sarcasm.

I knew lol.

 

[micromass]

I don't know why you need to be sarcastic about us knowing more than you though. We have studied science or mathematics for decades, while you're in high school and just read some popsci books. Of course we know more than you (in the field of science)! If you can't accept that and think that you should be taken as seriously as people studying these problems for years and years, then you're being delusional.

 

[nashed]

After reading this thread I figured the best option would be to post the syllabus of the standard physics degree in my university, bear in mind that I'm not from the USA but I don't think there'll be too much difference as the content of the bachelors degree is pretty much all standard stuff, so here's the actual list:

-Physics 1: this is an intro calculus based course, it covers Newtonian mechanics and the last 3 weeks ( about a fourth of the course) are about special relativity
-Physics 2: this is an intro to electromagnetic theory, it starts with the electric force of a stationary particle, introduces the concept of a field and develops Maxwell's equations, through out the course there is extensive use of special relativity because it is tied with electromagnetic phenomena from the field of a moving particle to the magnetic field and the fact that Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant, that is they work with Einstein's relativity not the classical relativity that you prefer.
-Analytical Mechanics: this course introduces a different formalism of classical mechanics in the form of the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, both of which carry over to quantum mechanics in some form or another, I can't praise this course enough but content wise this is all you need to know about it.
-Waves: a course about waves and wave phenomena, I cannot elaborate more as I am a double major in EE and physics and we are not required to take this course
-Quantum mechanics 1: this is the intro course on quantum mechanics, it introduces the formalism and focuses on solving some standard problems as well as building some intuition
-Electromagnetism and Electrodynamics: a more advanced course on electromagnetism which also deals with moving particles, wave phenomena that result from that and what have you, uses special relativity in the latter parts.
-Thermodynamics and Statistical mechanics: so every course up till now focused on either introducing some framework of rules or on how to solve some problems that arise directly from these frameworks, but what happens when you want to deal with large systems with many particles? this course basically gives the framework that is used to deal with such problems, in the last two weeks or so it covers quantum systems as well, which are some of the more interesting systems to look at.
-Quantum mechanics 2: haven't taken it yet so I cannot comment, sorry.

and that basically does it for the required theoretical courses, and as you can see, every single one of them deals with either special relativity or quantum mechanics or both in same way shape or form (QM more so than SR really, but both are used frequently enough), armed with that knowledge you're free to decide wither or not you want to peruse a degree in physics.

Lastly and for completion's sake I will list the rest of the requirements for the degree on the off chance that those will sway you one way or another:
- about 7 courses of mathematics, mainly stuff dealing with analysis
- a single course in each of chemistry and programming
- about 4 or 5 labs, some of which require doing a project as well
-at least 3 out of 5 of: solid state physics, optics, physics of elementary particles, intro to biophysics and lastly astrophysics
- courses from a list of various topics until you complete the number of academic points required for the degree ( ranges from plasma physics to quantum information theory to chaos theory and quite a diverse list of topics)
-some gen ed courses

Whew, that took way longer than I expected but that is as thorough a review you"ll get for a physics degree, deciding if it suites you is entirely up to your judgement.

 

[Student100]

I know I regret it. I would edit it out but it's too late. I was thinking of doing a masters in maths or engineering but that's about it.

Again, if you don't plan on getting a doctorate in physics, an undergraduate degree in physics is not the best path.

Maybe everyone should keep an open mind because you never know. I read a book called The Higgs Fake by Alexander Unzicker.

Yep more hate messages to come. Who cares.

Pot calling the kettle black? There's a difference between having an open mind and rejecting something without knowing anything about it - which is what you're doing! Alexander Unzicker doesn't have a graduate degree in physics, doesn't work as physicist, and thus isn't qualified to talk about the things he writes in book.

 

[micromass]

and thus isn't qualified to talk about the things he writes in book.

And even if he were, it wouldn't make him right. And it wouldn't make the OP right for simply believing whatever he said. From Kip Thorne about errors in the Feynman lectures:

This second error was pointed out to Feynman by a number of readers, including Beulah Elizabeth Cox, a student at The College of William and Mary, who had relied on Feynman’s erroneous passage in an exam.To Ms. Cox, Feynman wrote in 1975, “Your instructor was right not to give you any points, for your answer was wrong, as he demonstrated using Gauss’s law.You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities.You also read the book correctly and understood it.I made a mistake, so the book is wrong.I probably was thinking of a grounded conducting sphere, or else of the fact that moving the charges around in different places inside does not affect things on the outside.I am not sure how I did it, but I goofed.And you goofed, too, for believing me.”

The OP seems smart. But if she refuses to follow the scientific process and rely on her own thought instead of parroting others, then she has no business in science!