What is university-level physics like?

[quark]

If you teach physics at a college or university, or have distinct memories of doing labs as a physics major, or are a parent of a child now majoring in physics at a university, could you kindly give me an idea of what physics at this level is like? Especially:

1. prof expectations on lab reports -- what counts as a detailed report?

2. preparing lab reports and technology expectations involved

3. working with a lab partner and skills involved

4. difference between applied and theoretical physics and what is the difference in labs for each branch of physics?

5. what kind of research opportunities exist for undergrads -- applied vs theoretical? (I know this depends on each uni...just need a general idea)

6. feasibility of double majoring in something like math and physics taking into account time (or lack of it!) involved

 

Anything else you are able to think of would help me have an idea of what it all entails too.

 

Many thanks!

[8filltheheart]

I can only share impressions. I have no idea the accuracy of my impressions!

 

Ds's lab write ups were VERY involved. He often spent more time on his lab write ups than on any other part of the course. The lab write ups for modern were often 10 pages long (handwritten). He did have to type them up and do plotting with some program (I don't remember the name of the program. I just remember him teaching himself how to use it.) His lab write ups for his cal-physics class were also long, but more equivalent in proportion to the amt time compared to the class. (IOW, he spent just as much time on the class portion as lab portion, but in modern it definitely "felt" skewed far more heavily toward the lab.)

 

As far the difference between the 2 branches and undergrad.....all undergrads take the same sequence. Depending the school they might merge 2 classes into a single semester, but the core sequence itself is generally the same. (FWIW, I have read on the physics forum (a forum like WTM but for physics) that students who attend schools with 2 semester sequence classes tend to be more prepared for grad school, but that could just be the few posts I read b/c I have only read it a few times.) Anyway, the general sequence is 2 semesters of intro cal based, modern, physical (or classical) mechanics (either 1 or 2 semesters), 2 semesters of electromagnetics, 1 semester of thermal, and 2 semesters of quantum. (ds only has quantum left in the sequence.)

 

Last yr ds worked in a lab that was working with graphene. (applied) Right now he is working in a lab studying dark matter. (more theoretical) So, both as undergrad.

 

FWIW, ds is currently triple majoring in physics, math, and EE. He told me last week that he is thinking about dropping EE and instead pursuing a masters in math while in undergrad. (His school allows students to complete masters programs while an undergrad. Not all schools do.) He does not want to graduate early b/c he loves his research honors program. He is also really enjoying his math courses. (This semester he is taking 2 400 level physics classes and 2 300 level math classes. I think at the end of this semester he is only a few classes short of meeting the BS math course sequence.)

 

I have no idea if that is at all helpful. He has been on autopilot in terms of physics and math since 8th grade, so other than making sure he had the resources, I have been more of an observer than any sort of active participant.

 

ETA: Ds called me this morning an I asked him how accurate my description was and he clarified the following:

 

1-basic cal physics 2 labs were about 10 pages handwritten. (But physics 1 labs were fairly short. He said he founded a major difference between schools in expectations. He completed these classes at 2 different universities. )

 

2-Modern he only ever typed and they were about 10 pages typed and proper research paper formatting was emphasized.

 

3- the dark matter is more applied than theoretical. He said the undergrad opportunities are more applied than theoretical bc they need to have completed almost the entire undergrad sequence to participate in theoretical.

[G5052]

I minored in physics with double degrees in math and computer science.  Many of the physics majors did double degrees, double majors, or a minor with math because the number of additional classes wasn't that much more.

 

My physics labs generally took most of an afternoon because there was set-up, collecting data, and then taking the set-up down.  I went to a small technical school, so the labs even for the physics that everyone took were more intense than what you might find at a larger school.

 

We were expected to have read the lab ahead of time and do our lab notebook setup with the first parts of the write-up ready.  The TA would check our notebooks for completeness, and then we'd go to the stockroom to check out our equipment which had been put in bins for us. We'd do the lab, and then have the TA check the results again.  Then we'd take the materials back to the stockroom where they'd check them for completeness, and go home.  If you had problems or the TA said to re-do the data, you'd have to stay until that was done or come again on a day when they had make-up lab time for that class.  

 

As you went further, they did less checking, and with some labs you'd have to figure out what you needed and bring a list to the stockroom yourself.  Sometimes they'd give you the rough outlines of an experiment and you'd have to figure it out more of what you needed and what you had to do.

 

Writing up the last part of the labs took anywhere from a few hours and up.  Sometimes there were a lot of calculations to do on a calculator that took awhile and a lot of graphs (this was before students had PC's).  I also had to sketch set-ups. Some of my lab write-ups in my notebook were more than 10 pages long.  Then the notebook was due to the TA on a certain day, and we could get them back from him on a certain day so that the cycle could repeat.  I imagine that more write-ups are done electronically now of course.   

 

I never had any problems with lab partners. The first class they offered that all majors had to take was calculus-based physics, so the students who had gotten that far were more serious than the kids who were just there because Dad wanted them to major in science or engineering.

 

At that school, there were research assistant jobs for juniors and seniors, but that school had lots of undergraduate positions because they had a heavy research emphasis.

[Heathermomster]

DH and I are both BSEEs. As I recall, all lab expectations were clearly laid out at the beginning of the semester. The large reports started at the 300 level. Honestly, outside of consuming many hours, I don't recall having problems with any of them. I was more challenged using Excel, and the fact that I never learned to type.

 

By my third year, I developed a repoire with several students. That can't be helped really because you see the same people in the same classes. Lab partners were never a big deal because you know who to work with and who to avoid.

 

I worked for a research scientist one summer at the chemistry dept. DH worked over at the physics dept working on a 3D modeling program of a magnetic particle. (Talk about a yawn fest.). The program was titled Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU). I don't know whether the program exists anymore as all of this occurred 18 years ago. I don't expect it is difficult to find research opportunities if you work with profs or ask the debt head or a staff member.

 

ETA: REU link follows:

http://www.ams.org/programs/students/emp-reu

 

ETA2: The NSF site follows:

http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5517&from=fund

[quark]

8, G5052 and Heathermomster,

 

This is all very, very helpful for a newbie to higher physics like me. DS had his second physics lab experience in a DE calc-based class this week and took about 4-5 hours last night to prepare the first half of his report. He mentioned being thrown for a loop for a little while when Excel was required during lab and his skills are rusty, but luckily he had completed an Excel programming course two semesters ago and has also made a couple of spreadsheets for fun so it didn't take him long to pick it up again. There were instructions from the prof on how to type the lab up. DS is a pen and paper guy so it was an adjustment but not too difficult. I know he was also trying to be as detailed as possible. It takes a lot of time for now though...but it looks like that is to be expected and I am glad to hear it. I am hopeful this will be good prep for him if/when he moves on to physics at the uni.

 

His first lab course was Derek Owens' algebra based physics and those labs were easier (all at home and worksheets already prepared for filling in lab results, with some calculations and graphs needing to be added where applicable). He seems to be adjusting quite seamlessly to the increased expectations and is talking about possibly double majoring. I don't want to react too much and am mostly keeping out of his way (as experience has indicated I should do). But coming here to ask so that I can also be prepared for the time taken and learning curve required.

 

I would love to hear more from anyone who can add experiences so that I can provide some guidance if/when DS feels serious about majoring in physics.

 

 

[regentrude]

Quark, I am not entirely sure what it is you are asking, since it really depends a lot on the school how involved the labs are at the introductory stage, and on the setup and instructor how exactly lab reports are expected to be submitted.

At our school, for intro labs (1st and 2nd semester), students have to turn in their lab reports at the end of the 2 hour lab period. They have a preprinted lab manual (think sort of a workbook) and write directly in  the manual, do graphing by excel, paste in graphs and tables.

At DD's school, intro labs are 4 hours long, lab report is to be turned it at the end of lab period. They do calculations in excel but write report by hand into blank lab notebook.

 

Upper level labs vary; the advanced lab has students work in a group on a self designed project for the entire semester, under the guidance of a faculty mentor.

 

While intro labs accompany a specific intro course closely, at the upper level labs tend to be stand-alone courses that are not tied to a particular course content. There are, obviously, no labs that accompany a theoretical physics course. For a physics degree, the specialization does not come until grad school; all students are expected to take the same core classes and complete the same lab classes.

 

ETA: As far as research opportunities: There will be more in experimental labs than in theoretical research, for the simple reason that there are many tasks in labs that can be performed by undergrads with no specific training who can listen and follow directions, while undergrads are of very limited usefulness in theoretical research because that requires specialized knowledge of advanced, and sometimes very specialized, mathematical techniques. Undergrad research projects in theoretical fields usually involve programming and running computer simulations; a student who can program can contribute to numerical work in theoretical research - but analytical work requires so much background theoretical knowledge and advanced mathematical techniques that lower level undergrads typically can not make a useful contribution.

[go_go_gadget]

My husband got his BS in physics in June, and is now in grad school. His experience was that the labs were easy but time-consuming, and the theory (particularly quantum mech) was harder. The amount of time you've described sounds like it's in line with his and friends' experiences.

[G5052]

This is all very, very helpful for a newbie to higher physics like me. DS had his second physics lab experience in a DE calc-based class this week and took about 4-5 hours last night to prepare the first half of his report. He mentioned being thrown for a loop for a little while when Excel was required during lab and his skills are rusty, but luckily he had completed an Excel programming course two semesters ago and has also made a couple of spreadsheets for fun so it didn't take him long to pick it up again. There were instructions from the prof on how to type the lab up. DS is a pen and paper guy so it was an adjustment but not too difficult. I know he was also trying to be as detailed as possible. It takes a lot of time for now though...but it looks like that is to be expected and I am glad to hear it. I am hopeful this will be good prep for him if/when he moves on to physics at the uni.

 

 

Yes, as I said, I just had a minor, but my physics labs were time-consuming compared to say biology which was also done in a blank lab book with mostly sketching and minimal data.

 

The chemistry labs were also long, but didn't require as much mathematical analysis and graphing.  Once you got your result, writing up the rest was easy. Getting the result was my problem.  I had to repeat so many of the labs, and frankly wouldn't have gotten through without a friend who got approval for me to come and work while she was mixing up things for the labs (her undergraduate job).

 

My undergraduate school really emphasized lab work in every field, but they also had a high percentage who went on to graduate school (60% when I was there).

 

Of course my computer science classes also required long hours, so I spent a lot of time in the science labs and in the computer center (no internet access in dorm rooms then -- ha!). STEM majors are just time-consuming.  I don't know how I survived two majors and putting myself through school, but I did.

[Trilliums]

Oldest son (current high school senior) learned to write formal lab reports when he took honors chemistry at the local public school.  Most of the lab write ups were fairly short and hand written.  They had the occasional longer lab which required spread sheets and thorough write ups (sounds more like the one lab you are describing for your son).  Son took AP Physics at same school.  Labs were frequent but seemed rather informal and were generally not overly time consuming.  

 

He went on to take Physics 2 at the local U where he had a lab manual and labs were completed at the end of the lab period, as described above by Regentrude.  He always worked with a lab partner.  My son is an introverted (mild) aspie but he did not have any problems with getting along with lab partners as everyone was pretty focused on getting their work done and doing well. The very first lab in physics 2 was a bit tricky.  I don't recall the specifics, but he did mention not knowing exactly what he was supposed to do and being unfamiliar with the equipment.  I believe the instructors expect all students have taken physics 1 at the U and know the protocol.  In any case, it did not take him long to sort out whatever it was he needed to do.   For that class, the lowest lab grade was dropped so if students find their first lab is not meeting expectations, they have the opportunity to address issues and not have their grade permanently lowered. 

 

Son is now taking Modern Physics w/lab and Intermediate Mechanics at the U.  His lab manual this semester is on a disc but he does not have to print it out before hand.  His first lab is next week so he doesn't know much about how the reports will be generated.  

 

My son has considered a dual degree or double major in math/physics. or physics/CS. Last semester he completed two math classes at the U (Calc 3 and Lin Alg) and although he did very well in the classes (solid As) he said he was now less interested in a double degree as he prefers his physics classes over the math ones.  We didn't talk about this in great detail as he has time and who knows where he will even end up for undergrad.  But, as he gains more experience in college classes and course material, his ideas about his future studies have evolved and solidified. 

 

After taking Physics 2 at the U, son contacted his instructor and asked about volunteering in a lab.  At first they tried to help him find a spot in a more theoretical setting, but nothing panned out there.  It did, however, generate some funny discussions about being a volunteer *thinker*.  :D  Instead he has been volunteering in this professor's lab (particle physics) mostly programming with a graduate student.  Even though son wants to go into theoretical physics, he has enjoyed this immensely and it has reinforced his decision to pursue a degree and career in physics. 

 

At our local U, all undergrad students enroll in a semester long research project.  We don't know the details of how these progress, but according to the dept, ug research has become a de facto requirement for students, so they have implemented into the education requirements. 

 

We toured an LAC with a strong science dept.  Son met with a theoretical physics prof and they did discuss ug research.  The prof described research in theoretical physics as being gated by higher math.  He also waved in the general direction of a black board and descried that as his "lab".   I swear, everything that prof said just resonated with my son.  :D

 

 

[Butler]

I don't find double majors very practical in my opinion. If the intent is to pursue a subject (say math) further into grad school then the student would be better served taking a lot of advanced topics in math rather than having to squeeze in undergrad level classes for a second major. Math grad schools want to see math classes. I assume it would be the same for physics, etc.

[G5052]

 

We toured an LAC with a strong science dept.  Son met with a theoretical physics prof and they did discuss ug research.  The prof described research in theoretical physics as being gated by higher math.  He also waved in the general direction of a black board and descried that as his "lab".   I swear, everything that prof said just resonated with my son.   :D

 

Yes, that's me.  

 

My graduate work was in theoretical computer science which is math-math-math.  I worked out the math to get "fairly close" solutions to an np-complete problem (i.e. a baaaad problem), and then wrote a huge program to implement it and ran lots and lots of data.  Sometimes it would run for days trying to find a solution for certain data sets.  Then I proved mathematically that my solutions were indeed "fairly close."

 

I was nearly ready to get it all written up when my dissertation advisor decided that he didn't like my algorithm because he was working on a similar problem and had found some other aspects to the problem that we didn't know about.  He told me to start over.  Short story is that this went around and around and involved other professors, and I was ultimately told to start over.  I said I'd just take an M.S., and that was that.

 

For me, a double degree was three more classes. When you pick related fields, it isn't a biggie.  My first employer wanted a computer science degree with the type of extra math I took (operations research and statistics), and then when I later went to work for the government, the position I took wanted a math or physics degree even though it was primarily program management.  So having double degrees was a plus for me.

[flyingiguana]

The labs: It really varies.

 

I know that sounds like a bit of a cop out.  But it does.  I've seen a big range, even at one college.  My daughters have had, between them, about 7-9 different lab professors in physics and chem.  Every single one was different in expectations.  Some were kind of, toss off the lab to get the concepts down.  Others wanted involved, practically journal ready theses.  Both are useful.  It's probably good that not all professors do all one or the other.  Too many of the first and the kids wouldn't learn how to do scientific writing.  Too much of the latter and they'd never get anything else done.

 

It's probably fairly easy to double major in something like math with physics.  But, it takes knowing you're going to do it from the start, generally, and planning accordingly.  And it may mean that there are courses you didn't take because of lack of time.  Courses the student maybe really should have taken.

 

A minor in one or the other is probably a matter of only one more class or so.

 

However, I don't know that I'd suggest a double major unless the student actually is that interested in all those classes they'd have to take.  ONE major in physics is probably enough that a graduate could go on to a grad program in the other, with maybe only a couple gaps.  (As a comparison, I MAJORED in biology, but still showed up in grad school with gaps in bio that I needed a couple classes for.  And I'd come from a good university.)

 

Breadth might be better than depth.  So a major in physics with minors in math and comp sci, for example, (or chem) might be of more use to a student in the future.

 

Undergrad research opportunities really vary too.  Some schools don't do much of it.  Some have a lot of ONE field, etc.  For this reason, there's are a LOT of REU programs that undergrads can tap into -- going to another institution for the summer to get another research experience.

http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_search.jsp

[quark]

Quark, I am not entirely sure what it is you are asking, since it really depends a lot on the school how involved the labs are at the introductory stage, and on the setup and instructor how exactly lab reports are expected to be submitted.

At our school, for intro labs (1st and 2nd semester), students have to turn in their lab reports at the end of the 2 hour lab period. They have a preprinted lab manual (think sort of a workbook) and write directly in  the manual, do graphing by excel, paste in graphs and tables.

At DD's school, intro labs are 4 hours long, lab report is to be turned it at the end of lab period. They do calculations in excel but write report by hand into blank lab notebook.

 

Upper level labs vary; the advanced lab has students work in a group on a self designed project for the entire semester, under the guidance of a faculty mentor.

 

While intro labs accompany a specific intro course closely, at the upper level labs tend to be stand-alone courses that are not tied to a particular course content. There are, obviously, no labs that accompany a theoretical physics course. For a physics degree, the specialization does not come until grad school; all students are expected to take the same core classes and complete the same lab classes.

 

ETA: As far as research opportunities: There will be more in experimental labs than in theoretical research, for the simple reason that there are many tasks in labs that can be performed by undergrads with no specific training who can listen and follow directions, while undergrads are of very limited usefulness in theoretical research because that requires specialized knowledge of advanced, and sometimes very specialized, mathematical techniques. Undergrad research projects in theoretical fields usually involve programming and running computer simulations; a student who can program can contribute to numerical work in theoretical research - but analytical work requires so much background theoretical knowledge and advanced mathematical techniques that lower level undergrads typically can not make a useful contribution.

 

I totally understand that it varies...but :blushing: I am SO ignorant about physics at that level and my questions were just to have a general idea of what to expect. I have spent a lot of time asking IRL and here about math...but not physics and while we have somehow created a bubble of mathy people around us (thank you math circle!) because that's something DS has mentioned for a long time, the deeper physics interest is still new to us and I don't have access to physicists IRL to ask face to face. Physics-loving DH has some idea but he doesn't know what it's like here in the US and his own major is not pure or applied physics but a distant cousin (geophysics).

 

I like the different answers I've been receiving because it gives me an idea of how different it can be from uni to uni, thanks so much for that and for taking the time to reply! Now, I had no idea there were no labs for theoretical physics! Yes, I guess it makes sense because it's theoretical. Helpful to know specialization is in grad and not undergrad.

 

Last ETA para makes a lot of sense. Thank you!

 

 

[quark]

 

My undergraduate school really emphasized lab work in every field, but they also had a high percentage who went on to graduate school (60% when I was there).

 

Of course my computer science classes also required long hours, so I spent a lot of time in the science labs and in the computer center (no internet access in dorm rooms then -- ha!). STEM majors are just time-consuming.  I don't know how I survived two majors and putting myself through school, but I did.

 

60%! Wow! I just attended a talk at Berkeley...the figure is closer to 15%.

 

Bolded...errrm, write a book soon? :coolgleamA: :laugh:

 

Thank you so much, I am just drinking in everything all of you are saying and learning as much as I can about possibilities.

 

[regentrude]

Now, I had no idea there were no labs for theoretical physics! Yes, I guess it makes sense because it's theoretical. Helpful to know specialization is in grad and not undergrad.

 

 

 

Let me  elaborate on this briefly, if I may.

In a theoretical physics course, the main focus is on presenting/deriving the underlying theory and developing theoretical tools that can be used in physics. So, a course in theoretical electromagnetism would focus on teaching students to apply Maxwell's equations in vector and integral form and perform complicated calculations, field integrations, vector calculus etc. A theoretical mechanics course expands on Newton's laws and introduces other formalisms like Lagrangians which allow solving more complex problems, or solving problems mire elegantly, and are in itself if high theoretical interest - but of course these techniques can always be applied to an experimental scenario in a lab. Only, the class itself deals with the theory, so they would not pair a lab to accompany the course.

A student can still apply things learned in a theoretical physics course to an experimental setup - if that makes any sense.

[quark]

Oldest son (current high school senior) learned to write formal lab reports when he took honors chemistry at the local public school.  Most of the lab write ups were fairly short and hand written.  They had the occasional longer lab which required spread sheets and thorough write ups (sounds more like the one lab you are describing for your son).  Son took AP Physics at same school.  Labs were frequent but seemed rather informal and were generally not overly time consuming.  

 

He went on to take Physics 2 at the local U where he had a lab manual and labs were completed at the end of the lab period, as described above by Regentrude.  He always worked with a lab partner.  My son is an introverted (mild) aspie but he did not have any problems with getting along with lab partners as everyone was pretty focused on getting their work done and doing well. The very first lab in physics 2 was a bit tricky.  I don't recall the specifics, but he did mention not knowing exactly what he was supposed to do and being unfamiliar with the equipment.  I believe the instructors expect all students have taken physics 1 at the U and know the protocol.  In any case, it did not take him long to sort out whatever it was he needed to do.   For that class, the lowest lab grade was dropped so if students find their first lab is not meeting expectations, they have the opportunity to address issues and not have their grade permanently lowered. 

 

Son is now taking Modern Physics w/lab and Intermediate Mechanics at the U.  His lab manual this semester is on a disc but he does not have to print it out before hand.  His first lab is next week so he doesn't know much about how the reports will be generated.  

 

My son has considered a dual degree or double major in math/physics. or physics/CS. Last semester he completed two math classes at the U (Calc 3 and Lin Alg) and although he did very well in the classes (solid As) he said he was now less interested in a double degree as he prefers his physics classes over the math ones.  We didn't talk about this in great detail as he has time and who knows where he will even end up for undergrad.  But, as he gains more experience in college classes and course material, his ideas about his future studies have evolved and solidified. 

 

After taking Physics 2 at the U, son contacted his instructor and asked about volunteering in a lab.  At first they tried to help him find a spot in a more theoretical setting, but nothing panned out there.  It did, however, generate some funny discussions about being a volunteer *thinker*.   :D  Instead he has been volunteering in this professor's lab (particle physics) mostly programming with a graduate student.  Even though son wants to go into theoretical physics, he has enjoyed this immensely and it has reinforced his decision to pursue a degree and career in physics. 

 

At our local U, all undergrad students enroll in a semester long research project.  We don't know the details of how these progress, but according to the dept, ug research has become a de facto requirement for students, so they have implemented into the education requirements. 

 

We toured an LAC with a strong science dept.  Son met with a theoretical physics prof and they did discuss ug research.  The prof described research in theoretical physics as being gated by higher math.  He also waved in the general direction of a black board and descried that as his "lab".   I swear, everything that prof said just resonated with my son.   :D

 

I really enjoyed reading this. Thank you so much for sharing and wishing your son all the very best! My boy has a lot of time to decide about the double major...I'm asking around just to be prepared to help guide him. All I can be now is his guidance counselor and I am trying to do my best as I was not educated in the US.

[quark]

The labs: It really varies.

 

I know that sounds like a bit of a cop out.  But it does.  I've seen a big range, even at one college.  My daughters have had, between them, about 7-9 different lab professors in physics and chem.  Every single one was different in expectations.  Some were kind of, toss off the lab to get the concepts down.  Others wanted involved, practically journal ready theses.  Both are useful.  It's probably good that not all professors do all one or the other.  Too many of the first and the kids wouldn't learn how to do scientific writing.  Too much of the latter and they'd never get anything else done.

 

It's probably fairly easy to double major in something like math with physics.  But, it takes knowing you're going to do it from the start, generally, and planning accordingly.  And it may mean that there are courses you didn't take because of lack of time.  Courses the student maybe really should have taken.

 

A minor in one or the other is probably a matter of only one more class or so.

 

However, I don't know that I'd suggest a double major unless the student actually is that interested in all those classes they'd have to take.  ONE major in physics is probably enough that a graduate could go on to a grad program in the other, with maybe only a couple gaps.  (As a comparison, I MAJORED in biology, but still showed up in grad school with gaps in bio that I needed a couple classes for.  And I'd come from a good university.)

 

Breadth might be better than depth.  So a major in physics with minors in math and comp sci, for example, (or chem) might be of more use to a student in the future.

 

Undergrad research opportunities really vary too.  Some schools don't do much of it.  Some have a lot of ONE field, etc.  For this reason, there's are a LOT of REU programs that undergrads can tap into -- going to another institution for the summer to get another research experience.

http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_search.jsp

 

Thank you flyingiguana, yes, I was trying to see what responses I would be getting and hoping to see a range of responses because I do see already from son's first physics DE course vs second physics DE course this semester that profs already have different expectations. But the first DE was conceptual and this DE course is his first lab-intensive course and I didn't have enough experience from his taking the first course to guess what else might be involved.

 

Bolded: we are in a situation where the kid is REALLY interested in all these classes and also has a lot of time at present to take them as DE courses. Since we have that time and since a big chunk of his DE courses are still very affordable and since he is SO very interested, we're just wondering why not?

 

 

[8filltheheart]

Quark,depending on where your ds goes to school, when he goes, and credits accepted, double majoring might not be any issue at all. I actually assume it wont be.

[quark]

Let me  elaborate on this briefly, if I may.

In a theoretical physics course, the main focus is on presenting/deriving the underlying theory and developing theoretical tools that can be used in physics. So, a course in theoretical electromagnetism would focus on teaching students to apply Maxwell's equations in vector and integral form and perform complicated calculations, field integrations, vector calculus etc. A theoretical mechanics course expands on Newton's laws and introduces other formalisms like Lagrangians which allow solving more complex problems, or solving problems mire elegantly, and are in itself if high theoretical interest - but of course these techniques can always be applied to an experimental scenario in a lab. Only, the class itself deals with the theory, so they would not pair a lab to accompany the course.

A student can still apply things learned in a theoretical physics course to an experimental setup - if that makes any sense.

Makes perfect sense. Thank you!

[8filltheheart]

I just read ypur last post. That is ds. He has so much time to study whatever he wants that studying math with physics is just a love match.

[quark]

Quark,depending on where your ds goes to school, when he goes, and credits accepted, double majoring might not be any issue at all. I actually assume it wont be.

 

Thank you 8! At the CC, there is a big overlap in major requirements between the two majors (math and physics) and it doesn't seem so out of reach doing double associate degrees for transfer. Now I need to stop procrastinating and start researching what they are like at the unis he likes if he decides to try the freshman route. Have to educate myself on credits that might be accepted etc.

 

Hats off to all of you expert parent-guidance counselors! :laugh: I was reading Eight First Choices and cringing at how the author mentions that high school students have SO many people at the school and at home rooting for them...parents, principals, guidance counselors while we homeschooling parents have to be all three rolled into one! :svengo:

[Mike in SA]

Ok, my experiences as a physics / math dual major who did some theoretical research and ended up in the business world in IT...  :wacko:

 

Physics + math is a natural fit.  There was so little extra work involved that the second major was like any other degree + a minor.  Pure math is worth focusing on because it teaches one how to create mathematics, which is a very handy skill when trying to create novel models of bizarre phenomena.  Applied math is almost a cop-out, imho, because the pure stuff is so immediately applicable, anyway (well, maybe not number theory and the most discrete topics).

 

Lab work should be very detailed, but not necessarily difficult.  In all honestly, it's just like other labs, in that you collect lots of data, perform statistical analyses, examine patterns, and try to find causal explanations for what is seen.  Experimental physics (kind of a blurred topic, btw) focuses more on this type of approach to study, whereas theoretical tends toward mathematical studies.  I did my work in gravitational theory, and was studying chaotic models of perturbations on electromagnetic interactions. It involved lots of programming and numerical analysis, and tons and tons of iterations with different boundary values.  In the end, there was still a lot of data collection, statistics, and analysis.   :zombie:   Optics sure looked a lot more fun - they got to play with lasers.  Maybe that's why I didn't do more with my degree.  :001_smile:

 

 

[regentrude]

TI was reading Eight First Choices and cringing at how the author mentions that high school students have SO many people at the school and at home rooting for them...parents, principals, guidance counselors while we homeschooling parents have to be all three rolled into one! :svengo:

 

From what I hear from my friends who have children at ps, guidance counselors are not all that helpful.. especially not if they each have 100 students to counsel. the principal? Not involved with college apps at all.

[quark]

I just read ypur last post. That is ds. He has so much time to study whatever he wants that studying math with physics is just a love match.

 

:001_wub: It is such a gift to learn what you love/ love what you learn. To pursue what you love. So happy for your DS!

[Alice]

I probably shouldn't respond on what is a lovely physics thread....but my first reaction when I saw your title was "terrible". :) 

 

In reality, I had a very good physics professor who helped all of us chemistry and biology majors limp through his intro class which was a requirement for both majors and for being pre-med. I also had good friends and fellow chemistry students who helped pull me through physics and Physical Chemistry and I returned the favor during Organic and Biochem.  

[quark]

Ok, my experiences as a physics / math dual major who did some theoretical research and ended up in the business world in IT...  :wacko:

 

Physics + math is a natural fit.  There was so little extra work involved that the second major was like any other degree + a minor.  Pure math is worth focusing on because it teaches one how to create mathematics, which is a very handy skill when trying to create novel models of bizarre phenomena.  Applied math is almost a cop-out, imho, because the pure stuff is so immediately applicable, anyway (well, maybe not number theory and the most discrete topics).

 

Lab work should be very detailed, but not necessarily difficult.  In all honestly, it's just like other labs, in that you collect lots of data, perform statistical analyses, examine patterns, and try to find causal explanations for what is seen.  Experimental physics (kind of a blurred topic, btw) focuses more on this type of approach to study, whereas theoretical tends toward mathematical studies.  I did my work in gravitational theory, and was studying chaotic models of perturbations on electromagnetic interactions. It involved lots of programming and numerical analysis, and tons and tons of iterations with different boundary values.  In the end, there was still a lot of data collection, statistics, and analysis.   :zombie:   Optics sure looked a lot more fun - they got to play with lasers.  Maybe that's why I didn't do more with my degree.  :001_smile:

 

Thank you Mike! Every bit of info helps me understand what people do.

 

What programming background do you recommend to a newbie programmer interested in math+physics? DS has a little bit of excel programming and is also taking C++ at the CC. Would that be relevant? I was told that CC C++ is nothing like uni C++ (makes sense!). Would be nice to have your suggestions just so I can keep the thought in the backburner for his next CS choice (if he decides to take another computer course soon).

 

[regentrude]

What programming background do you recommend to a newbie programmer interested in math+physics? DS has a little bit of excel programming and is also taking C++ at the CC. Would that be relevant? I was told that CC C++ is nothing like uni C++ (makes sense!). Would be nice to have your suggestions just so I can keep the thought in the backburner for his next CS choice (if he decides to take another computer course soon).

 

 

C++ or  Fortran.

 

Yes, Fortran is alive and well in computational physics - if it's about performing large amounts of numerical calculations for big systems, Fortran is fastest, and has many structures conducive to numerics. My DH is a theoretical physicist whose research involves computational physics - parallel computing on a (self built) computer cluster with 560 CPUs .  In Fortran.

[quark]

C++ or  Fortran.

 

Yes, Fortran is alive and well in computational physics - if it's about performing large amounts of numerical calculations for big systems, Fortran is fastest, and has many structures conducive to numerics. My DH is a theoretical physicist whose research involves computational physics - parallel computing on a (self built) computer cluster with 560 CPUs .  In Fortran.

 

Whoa!

 

It's been a while since I've heard Fortran mentioned anywhere.

 

Thank you!

 

[8filltheheart]

Ds took Fortran last semester. The dark matter project requires Python (he took Python through AoPS and needed it for SSP.)

[Mike in SA]

Fortran is very similar to C, so C++ is a great starter.  I did my research work in C++, though I did some engineering / mathematical / scientific work in Fortran, C, C++, LISP, and Basic.   Most of those weren't too practical.  MATLAB is also being used for some things now.

 

DS12 is learning LISP via MIT-OCW's Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, and it is a fantastic course for learning to code the right way.  The only problem is that the language's current uses are fairly limited to artificial intelligence and hacking...

 

Python would be my other language of choice to learn to do things well.

[quark]

Fortran is very similar to C, so C++ is a great starter.  I did my research work in C++, though I did some engineering / mathematical / scientific work in Fortran, C, C++, LISP, and Basic.   Most of those weren't too practical.  MATLAB is also being used for some things now.

 

DS12 is learning LISP via MIT-OCW's Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, and it is a fantastic course for learning to code the right way.  The only problem is that the language's current uses are fairly limited to artificial intelligence and hacking...

 

Python would be my other language of choice to learn to do things well.

 

Thank you for sharing, Mike!