Why bother becoming a physicist?

[drews]

I'm thinking about it, but why bother? We will never understand the universe at a basic level. It's futile. The universe is too vast and too complicated for us to ever understand.

 

[mathwonk]

to have more fun. and meet beautiful girls.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm thinking about it, but why bother? We will never understand the universe at a basic level. It's futile. The universe is too vast and too complicated for us to ever understand.

Who do you think invented the transistor that has become the foundation of modern electronics? When you or your family get an MRI, who do you think came out with the physics that allowed for such application? How did you think we understand the behavior of semiconductors and magnetic materials so that you can post such a comment online via your computer?

If you think that all of physics is nothing more than some esoteric knowledge that has no bearing on your way of life and all the conveniences that you've enjoyed, you'd better look again.

Zz.

 

[smileandbehappy]

I'm thinking about it, but why bother? We will never understand the universe at a basic level. It's futile. The universe is too vast and too complicated for us to ever understand.

Well I am sure people all have different reasons but here are a few of the top of my head about why I think I am going to start an undergraduate physics corse at university which I thought of while posing exactly the same question as you as to whether I should do physics or economics.

1/ Your ego - you may only be able to understand very little of the universe but it will still be greatly more than virtually anyone you know! The idea of a certain superiority is a good one lol.

2/ The possiblilty of taking that basic knoledge and taking it just a little bit further - most people want to be sucessful in what they do and why shouldn't you be just the same? With phyics you do stand the possibility of changing the world forever!

3/ The possibilities of what you can do afterwards. A physics degree will let you do so much stuff, I am unlikely to ever use my physics degree once/if i get it as I am simply not good or motivated enough to take it further. However with a degree in physics you can get jobs in virutally anything including finance which will pay big money.

So yer why should you study physics? after all that rubbish above i really don't know - why study anything? why is any academic subject worthy of study? they all have floors and they are all changing - its just silly itsn it? just do it if ur good and interested.

 

[fizziks]

I never knew that the whole point of physics is to understand the universe. Physics is there just to make our lives easier. Ultimately at the end, physics is there to satisfy our material needs, not understand the universe. Very simple to understand the human nature.

More than half the world population don't really care about science unless it benefits or helps them directly. And sadly this is true among the majority of the Americans. It's the typical: "Why do we keep funding NASA and space missions? It doesn't help me in anyway and I want my tax dollars to benefit me and what is happening now."

 

[symbolipoint]

I'm thinking about it, but why bother? We will never understand the universe at a basic level. It's futile. The universe is too vast and too complicated for us to ever understand.

Improved academic (mathematical) skills;
improved critical thinking skills;
understanding of (some) technologies;
more exact understanding of scientific processes in other areas which physics study can specifically improve (for example, some kinds of spectroscopy) - important because often other kinds of courses for other sciences may not adequately clarify these processes.

So, even if you may not understand enough of the universe by studying to become a physicist, physics is good for you.

 

[leakin99]

We probably will never know about everything that is out there. If you look at it that way then you are right – there is no point. However, I think it’s not so much about knowing everything that is out there but trying to get to that point or close to it. As you try to get there, you’ll end up finding so much more than you knew before you started.
We all are going to do die someday. But if we can postpone that day through knowledge, I think it’s worth trying right. This is not just restricted to physics but anything that requires us to “learn something”.

 

[marcflores]

to have more fun. and meet beautiful girls.

I've got to show this quote to my wife and father-in-law... they'll get a huge kick out of it!

 

[DefaultName]

Actually, I know everything. PM me for any questions regarding the universe.

 

[G01]

Who do you think invented the transistor that has become the foundation of modern electronics? When you or your family get an MRI, who do you think came out with the physics that allowed for such application? How did you think we understand the behavior of semiconductors and magnetic materials so that you can post such a comment online via your computer?

If you think that all of physics is nothing more than some esoteric knowledge that has no bearing on your way of life and all the conveniences that you've enjoyed, you'd better look again.

Zz.

Well said! I would also like to point out that the modern transportation industry wouldn't exist without the necessary understanding the physics behind internal combustion engines. Along the same note, you can't build an airplane that flies without doing the necessary calculations using Bernoulli's principle. Physics is not only about inapplicable and uninterpretable mathematical theories. Physicists have made and will continue to make major contributions to society in many different ways.

 

[mgb_phys]

I don't know - I only did it to meet girls as well.

 

[wildman]

Oh... None of the physics classes I took had any girls. Maybe upper level classes had all the girls. Should have taken the upper level classes. Darn!

 

[Capt_Jet23]

I'm thinking about it, but why bother?

Let me answer that question with another of my own: "Why not?"

Do you REALLY have anything better to do with your life, however short it may be? I mean, REALLY? I see nothing better to do with MY life. It's better than being bored to death at some office job that you answer the phone all day or file papers all day.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

I never knew that the whole point of physics is to understand the universe. Physics is there just to make our lives easier. Ultimately at the end, physics is there to satisfy our material needs, not understand the universe. Very simple to understand the human nature.

More than half the world population don't really care about science unless it benefits or helps them directly. And sadly this is true among the majority of the Americans. It's the typical: "Why do we keep funding NASA and space missions? It doesn't help me in anyway and I want my tax dollars to benefit me and what is happening now."

physics and maths have no purpose besides intellectual curiosity.
how and in what way you apply them is a different thing altogether.

 

[RetardedBastard]

Oh... None of the physics classes I took had any girls. Maybe upper level classes had all the girls. Should have taken the upper level classes. Darn!

Hey, I'll do you one better. How about if THE PROFESSOR was a girl, and a hot one at that? Google "professor Lisa Randall" and see what I mean :)

 

[mgb_phys]

Oh... None of the physics classes I took had any girls. Maybe upper level classes had all the girls.

No it's just mathematics, in real life girls are complex, in physics they are simply imaginary.

 

[Mororvia]

mgb_phys, that made my day. hahaha.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Hey, I'll do you one better. How about if THE PROFESSOR was a girl, and a hot one at that? Google "professor Lisa Randall" and see what I mean :)

i guess if you are desperate everything goes... (-:

 

[CPL.Luke]

on the other hand physicists get groupies

 

[Darkiekurdo]

Why bother becoming anything? You will never be the best and you will never understand everything about what you do. So your argument does not hold.

 

[RetardedBastard]

i guess if you are desperate everything goes... (-:

Hey, what's that supposed to mean?

 

[setAI]

back in the college I decided to change my major from physics to computer science because I could see that accelerating computer technology and future advanced simulations of computable space would change the nature of science [as Stephen Wolfram has said] from abstract physical theories based on mathematical models to biology-like statistical analysis and taxonomic classification of structures emergent from simulation algorithms- the future [and present really] of physics will be bulk searches and analysis of possible universes in software- we will find algorithm's that output worlds that look like ours- and no longer create abstract theories to model/predict just what we can see

[but really it was because it was 1990 and I saw the internet boom coming and I wanted to make $ and play video games (^__-) ]

 

[NuclearEngineer]

IF EVERYONE THOUGHT THIS WAY -- THEN NOTHING IN THE WORLD WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED!

I think you need to come out of the defeatist attitude and look at science journals. Human creativity is expanding as we speak. High school students now know 10 times more than what was taught 10 years ago.

I think in the next 5 years astrophysicist are going to reveal a picture of the Cosmos like you have never seen before.

Our sattellites are becoming powerful to give real evidence that no computer algorithm can reproduce. Never lose hope in physics for the fate of mankind rests on its shoulders.

 

[drews]

High school students now know 10 times more than what was taught 10 years ago.

Out of curiosity, can you go into detail on this claim? What subjects? What info is now taught that wasn't taught just 10 years ago?

 

[InbredDummy]

good to know they are teaching quantum field theory and the poincare conjecture in high school, i can go to sleep peacefully tonight.

 

[jacohen]

I understand what NuclearEngineer meant. Although he exaggerated a little bit, he does bring up the point that children are learning higher and higher levels of math and science at earlier ages. I remember taking my first algebra class in sixth grade, but my fourth grade cousin is taking it in third grade. Plus, his science homework goes fairly in depth on the concepts of work, energy, and their conservation (which amazes me since I was still just memorizing planets , still including Pluto, back at that age).

I guess the point behind this is that scientific breakthroughs and research have a trickle down effect on society. As the highest level physicists progress forward in their discoveries, they actually pull society along with them, meaning that as they become more knowledgeable so does everyone else. I mean books from Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking don't fly off shelves (relative to most other physics books of course) for no reason. As a whole group, I think our world has grown at an incredible pace in its wealth of physical and mathematical discovery. And with "average joes" learning and understanding the concepts of string theory and quantum field theory, that speaks even greater volumes of what scientists are currently researching and learning.

I've written way more than I meant, especially since I feel it is asinine to respond to such an obvious troll. And where are these girls I keep hearing about?

 

[Dragonfall]

I'm thinking about it, but why bother? We will never understand the universe at a basic level. It's futile. The universe is too vast and too complicated for us to ever understand.

We won't with that attitude.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Hey, what's that supposed to mean?

it means exactly what it means, I've seen a picture of her and she doesn't look "hot" to me.

 

[drews]

I've written way more than I meant, especially since I feel it is asinine to respond to such an obvious troll. And where are these girls I keep hearing about?

I just love how people always claim that anyone who posts anything negative is a troll. It pisses me off.

 

[mathwonk]

i don't think ill bother to become an astronaut either. I'm content as a troll.

 

[Locrian]

Although he exaggerated a little bit, he does bring up the point that children are learning higher and higher levels of math and science at earlier ages.

Are they? In my experience teaching these kids when they hit college I find differently. Yes, they've taken higher level classes. . .

But they haven't learned much of anything.

 

[mgb_phys]

good to know they are teaching quantum field theory and the poincare conjecture in high school, i can go to sleep peacefully tonight.

Well the UK A level (age 16-18) grades are out today and not surprisingly are up 25% on last year as usual. Since we keep getting told that the exams aren't getting easier I look forward to the effects of the exponential increases in intelligence since league tables of schools were introduced.
This should mean I get the flying cars and bases on Mars I was promised by 2008!

 

[strings235]

the fact that people are learning much more nowadays is unquestionable. first of all, the number of people going to college is WAY higher than every before. people aren't just working on farms now--they're at least trying to learn. secondly, high school students are definitely learning more advanced courses. there is something called collegeboard AP's.

 

[strings235]

by the way...I don't understand exactly why you guys consider the female physics professor "hot"...no offense but she doesn't "look" that special.

just saying.



and drew. the dead honest truth is if you're studying physics because you want to make the greatest contribution or be the savant of the century (the next einstein or Newton) then you really shouldn't continue. studying science is about one's own self-development and enjoyment, not achieveing genius. cause to be honest...not all geniuses are happy. so if your trying to become a great scientist but you have the wrong motive, your achievements won't even be satisfying.

a nice quote that I've found quite true is this: Better beware of notions like genius and inspiration; they are a sort of magic wand and should be used sparingly by anybody who wants to see things clearly. (José Ortega y Gasset)


and if it's of any consolation, science only advances through contributions by many people. so if you have some talent, you'll be needed.

 

[mgb_phys]

by the way...I don't understand exactly why you guys consider the female physics professor "hot"...no offense but she doesn't "look" that special.

In the kingdom of the blind - the one eyed man is king?

Personally I think she looks very nice - but as I like intelligent women (hope my wife is reading this) I'm biased.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

by the way...I don't understand exactly why you guys consider the female physics professor "hot"...no offense but she doesn't "look" that special.

just saying.

that's ok, just one reatrdedbastard think so.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

In the kingdom of the blind - the one eyed man is king?

Personally I think she looks very nice - but as I like intelligent women (hope my wife is reading this) I'm biased.

there are intelligent women that also look good, this is not one of them... (-:

 

[RetardedBastard]

by the way...I don't understand exactly why you guys consider the female physics professor "hot"...no offense but she doesn't "look" that special.

just saying.

Are you and loop quantum gravity looking at the same picture of her as I am? Seriously, I think she's absolutely good looking in her pic at the harvard website. If she's reading this, Lisa you can explain warped dimensions to me anytime of day.

 

[RetardedBastard]

there are intelligent women that also look good, this is not one of them... (-:

I have a link that will, upon proper usage, change your mind. Please follow it :)

http://www.lenscrafters.com

 

[CompuChip]

I haven't read every post in the past three pages, but here's another one...

I'm thinking about it, but why bother? We will never understand the universe at a basic level. It's futile. The universe is too vast and too complicated for us to ever understand.

Why become a physicist? Well, why not? Why become a construction worker? Any building we can build will be demolished eventually. Why become a meteorologist? Even if we can predict the weather, we can't change it, so it's no use anyway. Why become a bank employee? All you do all day is shift around money which only exists on paper and -- though utterly worthless -- somehow is what thrives our economy and our lives. Why become anything at all? In the end you'll die anyway.

 

[TeTeC]

All right. I propose group suicide.

 

[Pythagorean]

I study physics because I find it interesting, not because I derive some ultimate meaning or because I think I'm doing something especially important.

Completely selfish, I know.

 

[NuclearEngineer]

Out of curiosity, can you go into detail on this claim? What subjects? What info is now taught that wasn't taught just 10 years ago?

Well ofcourse even though its a waste of me time why not.

Calculus: Diffrential calculus was not taught in high school they only started it in the 1990's. The curriculam has evolved since then, now we also learn about antiderivatives. My teachers are surprised by how much change has been made to the curriculim since he was in grade 12 10 years ago.

Physics: Since there was no diffrential calculus taught back then 2 and three dimensional physics were taught moderately and with no special explanations.Reference:Textbook physics 12*(Published mcgrahill- 1986)
Textbook physics grade 12*(Published mcgrawhill -2006).

Computer science: I am not even going to go there.

Biology- Life science courses and become so elaborate that intstead of piling up information on kids in university high school students(in ontario) are required to learn about biochemistry(enzymes), genomics, and human anotomy to a greater degree.

Discrete math: Now tis sis a hard course that has only been around for the ast 3 years in Ontario curriculum.


All these courses and more have been added to school institution all around North America and not only in north america. Schools in India and china teach students factorials and differentiation from grade 10. Since information is now readily available schools are able to choose how to change their curriculum based on theirs and the students needs.


This response was after looking at textbooks published from two years ago in comparision to textbooks published 8 years ago. Curriculum are constantly evolving. Although I do not have much information about other high schools in North america I am hoping that they all share(or are close with the standards) to the Ontario currisulum.

* I did not mean to offend anyone by this message*

 

[NuclearEngineer]

I am sorry not 10 times more. But prolly half way :)

 

[trinitron]

"cause to be honest...not all geniuses are happy. so if your trying to become a great scientist but you have the wrong motive, your achievements won't even be satisfying."

But you implicitly assume that happiness should be one's goal in life, which isn't an irrelevant assumption in a discussion on why one should do ____ in life.

 

[strings235]

first of all, I'm kinda not understanding what you're saying. are you supporting me or against me? you say happiness isn't irrelevant (meaning it's relevent) but you have a cynical tone. ah?

maybe happiness has a connotation that is too innocent and romantic to be appreciated. I should say satisfaction. one's occupation should give satisfaction that is unbaised by avarice for power and superiority (being a genius, gainning awards, etc.).

So what you're trying to say is that people might not do things for satisfaction but they'll do it for no reason? or are you saying people do it to pain themselves? or is there an even more general motive in life than satisfaction?


this is an interesting philosophy conversation let's keep going.

 

[Winzer]

Just for the sure sake of knowing, you have to be curious and creative. Also the girls.

 

[trinitron]

"first of all, I'm kinda not understanding what you're saying. are you supporting me or against me? you say happiness isn't irrelevant (meaning it's relevent) but you have a cynical tone. ah?"

What I meant was that if we're talking about why one ought to do something in life, and you in your arguments assume that happiness is the goal in life and that actions should be taken based on the effect on one's happiness, then you should make this explicit. The reason is that someone else may not view happiness as life's goal, but instead something else (accomplishment, greatness, fame, freedom, etc.).

The modern conception of happiness (I hope this doesn't come off as some kind of 'kids these days' comment, I mean this in distinction from other conceptions of happiness such as the Greek - see eudaimonia) is certainly not something I would make my primary pursuit. But that is a whole discussion by itself. See 'Happiness: The science behind your smile" by Nettle for a good discussion of this.

Now you instead turn to satisfaction, which I interpret as something much more similar to eudaimonia which I mentioned before. I've never really liked this term because it is so broad and ambiguous and it seems like anything can be filed under it. Some people believe that they need to establish their freedom of mind from their animal instinct by inflicting pain upon themselves. I would say these people are of the mind that freedom is most important, yet you can place freedom under eudaimonia. This seems to just confuse the issue.

If someone agreed to cut off their arm to save a thousand people, because they thought it was morally required of them, is the action satisfying?

Sorry for the poor writing, I hope it was clear enough.

 

[George Jones]

Calculus: Diffrential calculus was not taught in high school they only started it in the 1990's.

I went to a medium/large sized public high school in a small town, and, in Ontario, at least, this is completely incorrect.

The curriculam has evolved since then, now we also learn about antiderivatives. My teachers are surprised by how much change has been made to the curriculim since he was in grade 12 10 years ago.

My older siblings and I took high school calculus courses that, as part of the standard curriculum, included not only differential calculus and antiderivatives, but also techniques of integration like substitution and integration by parts. These topics were all covered in the text.

Physics: Since there was no diffrential calculus taught back then 2 and three dimensional physics were taught moderately and with no special explanations.Reference:Textbook physics 12*(Published mcgrahill- 1986)
Textbook physics grade 12*(Published mcgrawhill -2006).

I don't remember much about the physics courses (two years), but I thought they were reasonable. I believe we (the students in groups) even did an experiment to measure Planck's constant. I was lucky to have a physics teacher who had a degree (from Waterloo) in physics. This is a rarity these days.

Computer science: I am not even going to go there.

I took two years of computer science (Fortran programming) in high school. In the second year (grade 12), we did elementary numerical analysis, and we wrote programmes for various methos for each of the following: solving systems of linear equations; roots of general non-linear equations; area under a curve (definite integration). Again, I was taught by someone who had a university degree in the subject.

In terms of material covered and the quality of the teachers, high schools in Ontario have not caught up to where they were decades ago.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

I have a link that will, upon proper usage, change your mind. Please follow it :)

http://www.lenscrafters.com

it didn't change my mind.
perhaps without glasses she'd be looking good... (-: