/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5139660]

Does Physics get less ridiculous as you advance through college? It was one of my favourite subjects in high school, but taking the college level courses, it's just pathetic. The whole course is about how to half-assedly extrapolate data by drawing a line of best fit or slapping an exponent on one of the variables.

Picture related on a wikipedia article level.

[Anonymous No.5139696]

>>5139660
the point isn't to learn practical applications. if you want to do that, go do engineering

the point of learning physics this way is the problem solving process. It doesn't matter how accurate it is, it's just an exercise in critical thinking

[Anonymous No.5139704]

>>5139696
The practical part doesn't bother me. I understand taking pure physics is going to be mostly theoretical. But when does it get more accurate? I was directly told "no one is going to have the same results" for our labs.

[Anonymous No.5139711]

none of the classes i've had made you do this. go to a better school.

[Anonymous No.5139717]

>>5139704
>I was directly told "no one is going to have the same results" for our labs.

That's true and to be expected. 90% of you are either shit at running experiments, don't care enough to be careful, or both. Your equipment is cheap and imprecise because you go to a mid-tier at best university and there's no reason to waste funding buying more fragile instruments when they don't help teach proper data handling any better.

[Anonymous No.5139720]

>>5139704
once you have 4 semesters of calculus, and are in the 400 level courses, you'll start accounting for stuff like drag forces, and use langrangians instead of "total energy"

I've actually had a easier time in the upper division courses than I did with the 100 and 200 level classes

[Anonymous No.5139730]

if you don't like worthlessly ridiculous and impractical things, don't go into physics. that's pretty much their whole thing now.

90% of modern physics in a nutshell: making up theories that can't be proved and aren't useful like string theory, or performing experiments that basically explain things we knew anyway (higgs boson work) or are only breaking news by value of being completely fake (neutrinos "exceeding" the light speed)

[Anonymous No.5139736]

>>5139730
>Basing the state of modern physics of discovery channel programs.

[Anonymous No.5139739]

>>5139717
No, the first lab we were given the data. I can barely justify attending the class. It's like if they taught you how to make Kool-Aid in first year Chemistry.

>>5139720
So if I really wanted to get into Physics, I'd be eye-balling my work until I have a Bachelor's degree?

>>5139730
Well that's disappointing. The more I look into this the more it seems the part of physics I liked got sent to the Engineering department.

[Anonymous No.5139740]

All fields of science gets more and more "silly" as you close in on knowledge that is no longer certain.

[Anonymous No.5139747]

>>5139739
>No, the first lab we were given the data. I can barely justify attending the class. It's like if they taught you how to make Kool-Aid in first year Chemistry.

What level is this? You have to realize that most of your early physics courses at mediocre-low rank universities are going to be coddling the premed and engineering kids, who probably make up the bulk of your classes. You won't need to wait until you have a bachelor's degree, but you will need to not be in an intro course.

Don't listen to >>5139730 , he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Things would be a lot nicer if there was really enough funding for abstract, theoretical topics to be the subject of most physics research. It isn't. At all. Even close. Like that couldn't be farther from the truth. Holy shit it's so wrong.

[Anonymous No.5139751]

>>5139730
lolololno

[Anonymous No.5139750]

>>5139736

please be more specific in your critique of my opinion, Dr. Hawking. feel free to even blow my mind and cite journal articles

>>5139739

it really does sound like you'd get more out engineering to me, as someone who's been there himself. pure physics and most completely pure types of science really require a mind that's pretty completely divorced from reality (look at 90% of the posts around here on /sci/ if you're at all skeptical), which doesn't really sound like you in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.5139762]

>>5139751

so, three responses so far, and the best the keen minds of today's physicists can produce in evidence that i'm wrong is: a discovery channel joke, "holy shit it's so wrong," and "lolololno"

yep, those sound like convincing words of people who couldn't possibly be wasting their time in an impractical and stagnant field. you got me, guys

[Anonymous No.5139763]

>>5139739
I still don't understand exactly what you find ridiculous about physics, but yeah engineering might be worth a shot.
Besides, a lot of engineers go into research and excel at it.

[Anonymous No.5139766]

>>5139762
I think everyone was laughing because of how obviously wrong it is, no one felt any need to justify their denial. Most of the research done is material and solid state physics because that's where the funding is. Do you really think massive funding institutions are just dumping money onto universities for no return?

[Anonymous No.5139770]

>>5139762
Then explain us what the problem really is.
If it's really that you do nothing but drawing lines of best fit, you're doing shit physics.

If the problem is more that you like complete and finished theories with a good formalism, yeah obviously you would prefer engineering.
Here is how science goes:
-observe a lot of boring laws (often nothing more than doing a linear regression)
-eventually some genius theorists invent a good and elegant theoretical basis to link all this shit
OBVIOUSLY scientists wouldn't be losing time in a field if we already know everything about it. Of course if what you liked was solid mechanics, you won't be able to do research in it directly.

[Anonymous No.5139771]

>>5139762
I was mocking your ideas about the most popular areas of physics, not your opinion of the field.

[Anonymous No.5139776]

>>5139766
which goes back to what he said 90% of stuff we already know or can't test

solid state falls into the category of stuff we already know. The theory predicts that we can do a lot of things. What that funding is going towards is making it possible for us to implement the theory.

Better materials, more accuracy and precision, better efficiency of stuff that already exists etc.

[Anonymous No.5139788]

>>5139776
Not really. The basis of SSP is known, but a lot of theoretical questions are unanswered.
I should know, I try to answer them all day.

[Anonymous No.5139794]

>>5139763

don't misunderstand, *i* do engineering research, i'm not knocking it.

>>5139766

a lot of what you're describing is research done by engineers

>>5139770

first of all, you're confusing me with the op, read the thread before attempting to respond please

>>5139771

how are my ideas about major areas of physics research different from my opinions of physics research? ideas and opinions are equivalent in this case, and what defines an area of research if not the major areas? the minor ones? no idea what distinction you were trying to make here or why it matters

[Anonymous No.5139802]

>>5139788

good job, you've ended up in a type of theoretical physics research that does actually fall into the 10% that matters to anyone who's not a physicist

[Anonymous No.5140218]

>>5139776
>I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Can you at least try to sound scientifically literate?

[Anonymous No.5140227]

>>5139794
>how are my ideas about major areas of physics research different from my opinions of physics research? ideas and opinions are equivalent in this case, and what defines an area of research if not the major areas? the minor ones? no idea what distinction you were trying to make here or why it matters

You don't understand that a part is a different thing from a whole?

"I dislike pizza" =/= "I dislike cheese," make sense?