next »

[lonewolf_]

Hi there,

I'm 18 and I'm going to my second year in the Faculty of Sciences (it is 4
years) and I love Physics and Math.

Now there is a little problem: in the 2nd year we have to choose a branch and
I'm a bit confused:  we have Physics Special, Physics + Math and Maths Special.

I thought about Physics + Maths but the problem is that, naturally, they lack in
some courses from Physics Special (compensated by additional math).

So, which branch should I choose? Which will be more useful to my career? Deep
physics with slight math or average physics with average math?

Thanks very much"

[dale1]

You are going to do a lot of math in physics.  If you want faculty jobs, it seems like math is a better choice than physics, at least where I am.

[chabooi]

Congrats on your unfolding path!!

Can you speak to your tutors about the specifics?  You might ask them to clarify each track in regards to your own interests and talents, as well as forward options for your career. 

For example:
In terms of the Maths Special, you might ask whether following this tracks you into an "applied maths" direction.. this will have implications if you wish to pursue an advanced degree in maths, as there seems to be quite a difference between the purists and the apps maths people.

If you know something about the career directions you'll pursue, it can help guide your conversations.  Where do the grads within each specialisation land employment after finishing? 

I usually recommend that students follow a course that is satisfying to them intellectually but does not delimit their pursuits un-necessarily  Sometimes this is hard to know!! (example:  I had a student who was disappointed in trying to follow law after completing her Hons degree in theatre; she could not land on a course immediately.  Eventually she got there after she spent two years interning at a law firm). 

Everyone I know who graduated with Maths and/or Physics has done quite well, and I'm sure you'll do the same.  Enjoy!

[lonewolf_]

Thanks very much. I didn't know anybody answered so I'm sorry to be late.

Yeah, the problem is that I like both, but I'm afraid if I take Maths + Physics they will tell me I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist...

I don't know... but thanks again :) Let's hope I'll choose the best for me and for people. It's really great when you feel you are useful.

[sirkdn]

Interesting question....  when my students ask me the "general" or "specific" question, I usually suggest the "general" path.  If you study the field further there is an opportunity to specialize later - so I would choose Physics + Math. 

I doubt any graduate program in Physics would be concerned that you had too much Math....  as a caveat, I am a Biologist (so really have no right to comment on what Physicists want), and I live/work in the US....  overall, I feel there is value in maintaining a "generalist" approach as an undergraduate.

[lonewolf_]

Yeah, I have a greater tendency towards Physics + Maths (although they say it's more difficult).

I was actually thinking that I might look at the courses I didn't take during the semesters and study them in the summer. I seldom attend classes anyway, so it won't be hard. Besides I do like Physics so it won't be boring.

Thanks for your answer.

[justin]

Deep physics with slight math wud be gud bcos science always fetches

justin

http://www.wonderwhizkids.com

[lonewolf_]

Could you please clarify what you mean by "Science always fetches"?

[physics_girl]

I don't think physics+math would decrease the level of theoretical physics that you would learn.  It would be more likely that the physics-only course would allow you a greater access to physical modelling, experimental physics and maybe certain applied physics such as nuclear, fluid flows or whatever, all of which should be covered in the theoretical course, just not in great detail.  The upshot is that you should take as much math as you can, but keep enough physics that you can follow your interests.  Have you any idea of what sort of physicist you want to be? Does anything call out to you?  I'm more of a theoretical physics girl, so I'm studying physics with a lot of math and I'll try to do my experimenal physics within astronomy or more general courses that also teach good mathematical techniques.

[lonewolf_]

eh, hi :) The computer wasn't available lately so I couldn't reply earlier.

Well, I think I'm more theoretical too, in both physics and maths.  I checked our faculty website to compare the curriculae and... ugh, the physics in "physics + maths" isn't that "average". They study at least 65% of the courses in Physics special. Anyway, I've been told before that physics + maths is the most difficult branch of our faculty. Last year's class was... 1 student. lol, only one, compared to hundreds in other branches like biology and chemistry.

But I don't care. Difficulty is very relative, and I'd rather be built more "correctly" even if I will have to study harder a bit. So I tend more towards physics + math. Besides, maths is very nice too, and I would regret to leave it. Finding new formulae, annoying the instructor (by telling him you found the solution in a quicker and smarter way than his), laughing... maths' environment is really great.

As for experimental physics. mmm, I think I tend more towards weapons. And to be more precise, I tend towards "anti-weapons". I've always hated nuclear bombs for instance (I may be too influenced by middle ages, but I've always found nuclear bombs to be very "coward") and my dream is to annihilate all kinds of "weapons of mass destruction".

Thanks for your answer.

[twofish]

Hi there,

I'm 18 and I'm going to my second year in the Faculty of Sciences (it is 4
years) and I love Physics and Math.

Now there is a little problem: in the 2nd year we have to choose a branch and
I'm a bit confused:  we have Physics Special, Physics + Math and Maths Special.

I thought about Physics + Maths but the problem is that, naturally, they lack in
some courses from Physics Special (compensated by additional math).

So, which branch should I choose? Which will be more useful to my career? Deep
physics with slight math or average physics with average math?

Thanks very much"

Speaking as a former theoretical astrophysicist turned computer programmer.....

If you are planning on physics grad school, what track you take is less important than demonstrating that you are challenging yourself, and the type of undergraduate research and letters of recommendations you get.  Take the hardest most challenging courses you think you can handle, and that will look good if when you go to grad school, and it will be useful even if you don't.

The general advice is to do what ever you think is most fun since if you think it is fun you'll put more time and energy into it.  Do you like to tinker with equations or do you like to get your fingers dirty and build machines?  For me, I don't have the stamina to be a mathematician, machines break around me, but I like programming and that got me into numerical astrophysics.

Your idealism is going to be sorely challenged in the years ahead so you need to do something you truly find enjoyable if you don't want to let the world grind you down, and if you want to make physics into a career the world will try to grind you down.

A lot of it involves personality types.  Physicists look at the world in a fundamentally different way than mathematicians do.  Basically, mathematicians are very methodical and patient, where as physicists tend to be more intuitive at the cost of being "sloppy."  Within physics, theoreticians and experimentalists are different people.  As far as the uses of experimental physics, think telescopes, MRI's, oil drilling machines, and x-ray machines.

[lonewolf_]

Well, speaking of personality, I'm actually more a mathematician than a physicist. I've always been a perfectionist, so I found some theories in physics "sloppy" indeed.

Still, I like both. My favorite time for instance is finding formulas in mathematics. And I can spend days to find one. The last one I finally discovered after about 5 days was a formula for a 2x2 matrix A. I could finally get A^n with some equations that depend solely on the eigenvalues of the matrix, rather then the traditional approach of finding eigenvalues, then eigenvectors, then multiplying 3 matrices...etc

Physics also is great. Sometimes I think of modern physics as the applications of mathematics. You have relativity depending essentially on tensor theory, quantum mechanics on many mathematical fields... so choosing "physics special" and studying just a few mathematics didn't seem to me very reasonable. My image of physics is something like a beautiful interpretation of mathematical formulae. I know that physics is much more though.

As for the experimental side... well I've never liked labs very much, except when I'm with my friends. I can do experiments well, but I've never felt it was really interesting. I used to say "well, if a scientist and a technician can do an experiment equally well, why waste the scientist's time?" of course I'm referring to some experiments, not all, which involve some kind of "donkey work". Yeah, I prefer equations much more. Even when I think of appliations, I always think of designing something new, but not making it myself...

Thanks for your answer. I finally filled the application and I chose "physics + math" as I don't want to give up either of them now, and as I think that mathematics does yield some keys to physics.

[twofish]

As for the experimental side... well I've never liked labs very much, except when I'm with my friends. I can do experiments well, but I've never felt it was really interesting. I used to say "well, if a scientist and a technician can do an experiment equally well, why waste the scientist's time?"

What you'll find in the "real world" is that experimental physicists are using design the experiments and build the equipment.  For example, you need a physics degree to be about to design a good spectrophotometer or a neutron detector used in oil drilling.  One of the more interesting fields with jobs is health physics.  Someone has to design the MRI's and X-ray machines, and this requires some deep knowledge in physics.

I think that part of the problem is that the undergraduate curriculum tends to reduce experiments into "do this" cookbook exercises.  In the real world, things are much less well defined (and more fun).

The one thing that you have to remember (and this is speaking as a theorist) is to bear in mind the importance of data.  There is something I call the theorists's disease which is the incorrect believe that you can figure out how the universe works by pure thought and theoretical elegance.  You need a stream of incoming data to do anything useful.

[lonewolf_]

Yeah, I mean, I still remember how we had to verify Newton's law of cooling for instance. We had to look every 30 sec to one of 2 thermometers, one in water and the other in benzene. Not only was it very boring, but my data was not very beautiful and I had to... ahem, make it more elegant myself to be able to graph it. Still, my data was actually one of the best. One problem in labs is that, sometimes, you get bad results only because there is something wrong with the device itself. I also remember the most boring experiment in history: one in Biophysics. In this one we had to count 40 drops of water falling from a burette in order to find the surface tension of water afterwards. Just that stupid counting took at least 75 min.

But basically you are correct. My problem is that I've always tended more towards theories and thoughts than to experiments and actions. Even with sports... my friends would play football and I would go to the library and read something instead. So, after all, maybe an advantage of labs is that it prepares me to real work...

I just hope I will do something really useful. And although I like modern physics very much, I doubt the answer will be there. When I read about relativity, QM and others, I say "that's really beautiful. You did correct our view of the universe. You did correct some data. However, how exactly was that useful for people?" maybe it's at that time that my childish idea of eliminating weapons emerged. I don't know, we'll see. It's not at all that I want to be famous. I've always hated being a celebrity. "Just leave me alone." That's probably my motto although people are generally very nice to me.

Well, thanks again.

[twofish]

Yeah, I mean, I still remember how we had to verify Newton's law of cooling for instance. We had to look every 30 sec to one of 2 thermometers, one in water and the other in benzene. Not only was it very boring, but my data was not very beautiful and I had to... ahem, make it more elegant myself to be able to graph it.

One thing that I try to emphasize whenever I've taught a lab course is that the answer that you measure is the correct answer.  It may be that the answer that you measure is wildly discordant from theory, but that's ok, since that's what happens in the real world. 

The other thing is important, is ok now that you've done the experiment, what other things can you to change the experiment. 

One problem in labs is that, sometimes, you get bad results only because there is something wrong with the device itself.

Any measured result that you get is a good result.  In the real world, you have to deal with equipment breakdowns and weird things happening all of the time.  The reason that physics lab is important is that part of what it teaches you is to "get used" to the frustrations and annoyances of dealing with real world equipment.

You did correct some data. However, how exactly was that useful for people?" maybe it's at that time that my childish idea of eliminating weapons emerged. I don't know, we'll see.

Let me give you a practical example that might be of interest to you.  The only reason that they comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty went effect was they major nuclear powers had enough computer models of atomic explosions that they felt secure in banning nuclear explosion tests, and banning nuclear explosion tests has the effect of slowing advances in nuclear technology.  Also in order to get the CTB passed, each side had to be confident that they could detect cheating by anyone else, which involves a lot of sesmic physics.





 It's not at all that I want to be famous. I've always hated being a celebrity. "Just leave me alone." That's probably my motto although people are generally very nice to me.

Well, thanks again.
[/quote]