/pg/ - Physics General

[Anonymous No.9051158]

So, how is your work and study going, physics and physics students of /sci/?

[Anonymous No.9051173]

finally got the PhD but now I can't keep up with my projects.

It's of course related to doing a 40 hour job now, but there's also social media I think I should do to break out of basic wage life, and that crypto shit which magically seems to be a money machine. I try to combine that with dependently typed memes as good as I can, but I must somehow externalize some capacities. Maybe I'll find a schedule that works for me and then I'd like to do time series and probability, as this relates to everything.

[Anonymous No.9051180]

>>9051158
The black and white man

[Anonymous No.9051835]

>>9051158
Lmao somebody actually made a physics general the absolute madman.

I've just finished a MSc, and I'm heading for a PhD soon, been reading Turaev and Moore & Seiberg on the relationship between TQFTs and CFTs on the side. There is a direct correspondence (made explicit by metaplectic UMCs a la Nayak) between Friedan-Shenker operator algebra-based RCFTs and topological 2-DRMFs, and there are generalizations of this correspondence to that between the sequence [math]SU(2)_k[/math] of Chern-Simon TQFTs and (in general irrational) CFTs as illustrated in Kohno via the Witten invariant.
I'm thinking if there are ways to generalize this further to investigate the topological (i.e. non-perturbative) contents of TQFTs with more general simple Lie groups as gauge groups, and perhaps even establish a general framework for AdS/CFT given some proper geometric data is imposed on the TQFT side.

[Anonymous No.9051956]

>>9051158
Please let this be a thing, we can't have this guy >>9051835 shitting in the math general all the time. There's plenty of other problems to deal with.

[Anonymous No.9052193]

>>9051956
Thanks for the(You). I'm going to continue to post in both threads though.
Also if by "shitting up" you mean "actually posting interesting mathematical facts and how they relate to physics" then sure, I'm guilty.

[Anonymous No.9052304]

bump

[Anonymous No.9052337]

>>9051158
I would like this to be a thing but I'm on holidays so have nothing to contribute till september

[Anonymous No.9052343]

>tfw first year Ph.D at no-name university

I don't know how to feel. I know I rank very low amongst prospective physicists and it sort of feels pathetic to even continue on this track but at the same time it's better than doing some kind of wagecuckery.

[Anonymous No.9052486]

>>9051835
>Lmao somebody actually made a physics general the absolute madman.

someone have to stain his hands

[Anonymous No.9052668]

why does nobody respond to people here?

[Anonymous No.9052692]

>>9052343
which uni?

[Anonymous No.9052697]

>>9052668
Because people who discuss physics here are all larping.

[Anonymous No.9053083]

>>9052343
If you're with a good prof it usually doesn't matter where you go. Of course you'd have to work harder to produce more work so that you get your reputation up.

[Anonymous No.9053096]

>>9053083
>being this delusional

[Anonymous No.9053618]

>almost no one posts here
it appears /sci/ is a math focused board

[Anonymous No.9053623]

>>9053618
No. It's because op used /pg/ instead of the superior /PhG/

[Anonymous No.9053643]

>>9051158
11 months till thesis hand it.
I'm holding on to my butt.

[Anonymous No.9053665]

>>9053623
I recommend /pg/ ~ /physics/ general

[Anonymous No.9053667]

WZW terms found in Graphene Landau levels: https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5684..
Low energy Graphene is a Dirac semimetal with a big [math]SU(4)[/math] symmetry. The fact that it's possible to construct topological actions with it shows that TQFTs other than those arising from [math]SU(2)_k[/math] Chern-Simons can be realized in physical systems, and holds new possibilities for topological quantum computing. In fact I think Microsoft is big on using fermions on Graphene as topologically protected qubits recently.
>>9053643
What's the thesis on?

[Anonymous No.9053703]

>>9051158
Solid State and molecular physics is fucking me up hard bros. I heavily underestimated the time I needed for to study and now I have 5 days until exam.

[Anonymous No.9054627]

>>9051835
>>9053667
Have you tried to contact Ciprian Manolescu? I recently found out that he did his phd on TQFTs.

[Anonymous No.9055116]

Is the no jobs for physicists meme true? Will I be working at a mcarnolds with a 4 year degree while I support myself through my masters?

[Anonymous No.9055618]

>>9054627
This guys is doing what I wish I could do.

[Anonymous No.9055686]

>>9055116

Yes. I got a physics degree, realised there was no future in it unless research, went and got a Renewable Energy MSc.

[Anonymous No.9055702]

lmao im doing donkey dicks like fuck all
sometimes i feel like pursuing physics is suicide

[Anonymous No.9055718]

Alright. I'm in the process of making up the ground I lost the past two years. I have 2 and a bit months before my 3rd year starts, so I'm getting a bit of a head start. (I need to average 80+% next year, which in bong terms, is insane). I think I might want to do too much - I want to make a decent way through the following books:
Steeb: Nonlinear Dynamics, Chaos, and Fractals - Problems and Solutions
Foot: Atomic Physics
Pressley: Elementary Differential Geometry
Steane: Relativity Made Relatively Easy
Simon: The Oxford Solid State Basics
Nielsen & Chuang: Quantum Computation & Quantum Information
Jammer: The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics
Lange: intro to the Philosophy of Physics

as well as reading fiction, poetry, and writing two books.. tfw adhd-i. at least I have a diagnosis now.

[Anonymous No.9055763]

>>9055718
You're all over the place. Just read the Landau-Lifshitz series.

[Anonymous No.9055796]

>>9055763
>all over the place
Not really.. half of those are written by people who taught the very courses I'm taking. The rest I'm reading out of interest.
Oh and I'm doing Bartle & Sherbert's real analysis too. It's just difficult to know if my proofs are satisfactory.

[Anonymous No.9055885]

can I get to a good PhD program from a shit tier bachelors? I'm at CUNY Hunter right now, 3.5 gpa from first year. getting an accelerated masters in physics and a bachelors in math- 3.7 gpa in physics (11 cr so far) and 4.0 in math (12 cr so far)

[Anonymous No.9055919]

>>9055796
narrow your interests or you will be learning too much to learn much of anything at all

[Anonymous No.9055954]

>>9055919
There's little chance of that. I'd feel like I was missing something. I'm just going to have to acquire the ability to focus for 10h straight every day... that'd be the dream.

[Anonymous No.9055978]

>>9055954
that's certainly not the case now: act in response to reality, not in response to potentiality

[Anonymous No.9056455]

Algebraic topology and homotopy/homology can be used to describe defects in disordered media: https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.51.591..
Given the stablizing subgroup [math]H< G[/math] of the symmetry group that fixes the space of low energy states [math]R \subset \mathcal{H}[/math], the topological orders of the theory is characterized by [math]\pi_n(R/H)[/math], where [math]n=0[/math] characterizes a planar defect (e.g. domain walls), [math]n=1[/math] a line defect (e.g. cosmological strings) and [math]n=2[/math] a point defect (e.g. Dirac monopoles). This is also related to the Goldstone-Nambu theorem (where non-trivial topological orders can cause a massless zero mode to form) and the Mermin-Wagner theorem (where long range topological ordering cannot exist in a conformally invariant theory for dimensions larger than 2).

[Anonymous No.9056709]

I know very little about physics.

Has state-of-the-art physics gotten harder to gather evidence for through experimentation over the years? Most of Einstein's ideas were checked within his lifetime but it seems like most things to do with string theory or supersymmetry are years away from experimental verification and unlikely to happen in the lifetimes of the physicists who contributed to the theory?

There's open problems in mathematics that are several thousands of years old like existence of odd perfect numbers, are there any 'very old' ideas in physics that are still stuck in the theoretical stage?

[Anonymous No.9056713]

>>9051158
Started my first bit of QM and found it mixed. The math felt a touch tedious at times, but the physics was fantastic for the most part, learning how certain things defy every day notion of common sense.

>sound gay af

[Anonymous No.9056721]

>>9056709
The theory of topological phase transitions developed by Kosterlitz and Thouless in the 1970's was only recognized by Nobel in 2016, and the gap between theoretical and experimental discoveries are only going to widen. The relatively recent idea of non-Abelian excitations might not even be experimentally verified in my lifetime.
Even without all the /x/-tier shit like string theory it still takes a very long time for experimentalists to catch up.

[Anonymous No.9056799]

Going to begin with my Master thesis in material physics this October, very excited for it!
Topic will be to analyze the dynamics and local structure of amorphous silicon.
For the future I might continue on the same topic and go for the PhD or try to find a job in the semiconductor industry here in Germany e.g Globalfoundries.

[Anonymous No.9056842]

>>9055978
The more I know, the closer to reality I am..

I do see what you mean, though. It's just a bit more difficult than that.

>>9056713
bra-ket is comfy af though

[Anonymous No.9057120]

I doubt that some constants are actually constants.
They must have had different values at the time of the big bang and it's extreme conditions which certainly would change some aspects on the research of it.

[Anonymous No.9057492]

>>9056713
The math is the best part. Read Sakurai or Ballentine to get an idea of the actual math behind QM, the math in Griffith (which is 9 times out of 10 what people like you are reading) is just computations.

[Anonymous No.9057650]

>>9057492
Why not Cohen-tannoudji however it's spelled?

[Anonymous No.9057654]

>>9057650
Too mainstream.

[Anonymous No.9057669]

>>9055116
You can get jobs in consulting easily

[Anonymous No.9057682]

>>9057492
What about Shankar?

[Anonymous No.9057713]

Couldn't get into grad school because I'm a brainlet and got a low score on the pgre. Looking for a job now. Any advice for getting into grad school later in life? What would I do about letters of rec?

[Anonymous No.9057721]

>>9057682
It's ok but not deep enough. If you're hardcore I recommend von Neumann.

[Anonymous No.9057728]

>>9051158
I'm about to start my last year or my bachelors and aiming to work in quantum computing.

How's the field for anyone in it?

[Anonymous No.9057735]

>>9057120
Expanding on this >>9051158

I've always wondered, are the physical constants in nature rational?

I get that we define our units and therefore change what these values are. Like the speed of light for example.

But if in math an irrational number stays irrational in all rational bases shouldn't certain physical constants as well?

And what would this mean of the universe?

[Anonymous No.9057740]

>>9057735
Are you fucking for real? Changing units is not the same as changing number bases.

[Anonymous No.9057746]

>>9057740
But if we define rational units it gives a system that is rational.

Or am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.9057749]

>>9051158
Working on a PhD in High Energy Experimental, with focus on hardware. I never felt like physics had lost meaning until now. It has been almost a year and I haven't done any 'real' physics. I am working on design and construction of a large area, high efficiency (99.99%) detector for a potentially game-changing experiment, but it feels like nothing but grunt-work. I think I got spoiled doing software and simulation for the experiment, but I enjoy working with my hands. The only thing I really got going right now is building a cosmic ray test stand I designed, utilizing some large cathode strip chambers, for testing the detector components. I need to get readout electronics for the chambers, design the gas system, and get some trigger paddles up, and then I get to write some analysis software for it. Should be fun, more fun than tech-work all day.

I think I have unknowingly enrolled in an engineering degree, but I'm not sure yet.
At least I will have skills most other physicists wont; I'm looking at you LHC experiments.

[Anonymous No.9057758]

hey guys I wanna start studying quantum mechanics by my own. Any good books to start with?

[Anonymous No.9057760]

>dirac delta generalized function

[Anonymous No.9057766]

>>9057749
That's the nature of your field. Loads of simulations, programming.

[Anonymous No.9057780]

>>9056799
I think you can find a better place than Glovalfoundries.

[Anonymous No.9057782]

I am learning about differential algebras, hopefully they have applications to Physics.

[Anonymous No.9057789]

I started doing research in neuroimaging and I have a fairly strong physics and math background and is why I passed interview to get position as an undergrad.

However, I don't know much about coding and programming. I have to use MatLab.

I need to complete a project by Tuesday and I basically have to make these different shapes like a cone, pyramid in MatLab using linear algebra or something.

How do I do this? Any tips on going about on learning how to do this? Or just about MatLab in general?

Really confused and don't want to embarrass myself in front of my PI. Would be very grateful for any anon's help

[Anonymous No.9057804]

>>9057789
Are there more of these pictures

[Anonymous No.9057815]

>>9057713
Anyone? :(

[Anonymous No.9057839]

>>9057804
Not that I am aware of

Got any advice for my situation?

[Anonymous No.9057851]

>>9057839
Unfortunately I'm not familiar with MatLab, we just use Mathematica and Python around here.

[Anonymous No.9057863]

>>9057789

If you understand how to describe your object by a mathematical notation, be it in the form of a point cloud, a matrix notation or vectors, the rest follows naturally as Matlab was designed to manipulate matrices and visualise the results.

[Anonymous No.9057889]

Is math all practice or just natural aptitude? I suppose someone who wasn't gifted for math can never reach the understanding of someone who is and has worked upon his natural talent.

>tl;dr math's pure natural aptitude after a certain point IMO

[Anonymous No.9057914]

>>9057766
Simulations and programming I like.
Gluing scintillator together is getting old.

[Anonymous No.9057958]

>>9057889
Math requires a natural aptitude of "the willingness to practice lots".

[Anonymous No.9057968]

>>9051158
I'm just starting to take Algebra 1 in the next semesters. lol

[Anonymous No.9057993]

Going into final year undergrad. Reading some QFT. Do you have any recommendation for undergrad thesis in QFT? (hopefully something better than φ4 or QED)

[Anonymous No.9057995]

>>9057993
QCD is fun

[Anonymous No.9058008]

>>9057993
>QFT
>Undergrad
These two things do not go together.
My recommendation is not to be a pretentious fuck and think "oh look at me, I'm doing QUANTUM FIELD THEORY!!!one!!"
[math]\phi^{4}[/math] theory is just really just cute examples to work through at this point. QED is replaced by Lattice-QCD, which is something only those with doctorates work on/program.
The only interesting thing you can do is look at running coupling constants with higher-order corrections. Good luck though, it is nothing but long and tedious calculations.

[Anonymous No.9058013]

>>9058008
>These two things do not go together.

Not him but at my school you can do two semesters of QFT your senior year if you want.

[Anonymous No.9058062]

>>9057815
>>9057713
Going from industry to academia is difficult, what you might want to do is try getting a job that will help you get your masters and then pivot to getting a PhD. You can also always apply to a masters program, get you GPA up and then apply to a different PhD program or try getting into the one at that uni. I would also stress that some masters programs accept both academic and professional letters of rec.

[Anonymous No.9058074]

>>9057758
Shankar is a good book to self study from since it starts with the prerequisite linear algebra and doesn't really assume too much overhead
>>9057760
I think the word you're looking for is 'distribution'
>>9057789
https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/171309?requestedDomain=www.mathworks.com
For the most part you know the functions that generate various objects and you use those to plot the objects.
>>9057993
What do you like about QFT? How much of a background do you have? What book are you using? Point is you're likely doing an exposition on QFT but need a subject matter but this depends on a lot of factors that should first consider before picking a topic, so what about QFT do you like?

[Anonymous No.9058087]

>>9058074
Thanks for the book recommendation!

[Anonymous No.9058104]

>>9057863
I think that's only the problem I am having. I really am not sure how to describe these. It's been a while since I've taken Linear Algebra and I think that's how I need to describe these shapes.

Could you or some anon explain what I would need to do to describe a cone or cylinder for example?

[Anonymous No.9058144]

>>9058062
>what you might want to do is try getting a job that will help you get your masters and then pivot to getting a PhD

Hmm, how would I go about pursuing a job like this? I'd imagine that I would have to state my desire for going back to school but how common is this for an employer to actually provide this opportunity. I appreciate the answer though. I've been depressed about it but I still love reading and learning about physics and mathematics, even if I'm out of school.

[Anonymous No.9058158]

>>9058074
Currently using {Peskin and Schroeder}'s book. Mostly I like its mathematical elegance or better stated its mathematical can-be-made-elegant, and the fact that you can arrive to pretty much everything from "first principles". My background (relative to that) is 2 courses on QM, SpRel, GenRel, DiffGeom and pretty much all undergrad program

[Anonymous No.9058177]

>>9058144
These were programs I've seen on the corporate side of things, so I don't know if you can do it for math/physics, but for what it's worth there's some info here.

http://www.gograd.org/financial-aid/companies-paying-for-grad-school/

What you might want to do is outlined here

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23485/3-4-years-since-i-graduated-how-should-i-time-asking-for-recommendations

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/24592/email-to-a-professor-after-long-time-for-recommendation?rq=1

You might wanna try keeping in touch with some of the people you got letters of rec the first time around, or possibly try and find professionals that have some academic connections to write a letter for you. I think your best bet for grad school is first applying to a masters program (easier to get into) and then trying to go into a phd program from there (this is assuming your employer won't help with grad school).

>>9058158
So you're getting a proper background, that's good, (a great follow up is Zee's book), so is the formalism of QFT what you find attractive, it's power, or is there anything else? Any specific topic that has caught you eye yet (operator algebras, superconductivity, gauge theory)? The fact that you have a good background in GR and Diff Geo is also good.

[Anonymous No.9058186]

>>9058158
>>9058177
I should also add that are you interested in QFT for physics purposes (particle physics and the like) or for more mathematical purposes (things like it's connection with Knot theory)?

[Anonymous No.9058237]

>>9058177
>>9058186
For now it is only the formalism, I haven't seen it's power in action since I've just started reading.
If by operator algebras you mean the Lie algebras one usually sees in these courses, then it's fun but just that; fun. If you mean something more general like algebras of Banach space operators blah blah, then I don't know, haven't seen it. If that connects somehow to QFT, it might be a great thing (got any link on that?)
Superconductivity falls easily into gauge theories, doesn't it? Isn't it just abelian gauge symmetry breaking? Also from Stat Phys pov I find it quite uninteresting.
Gauge theories in general, yes, I find them quite interesting.
Forgot to mention courses on Stat Phys of particles, and Stat Phys of Fields (Landau GInzburg theory, mean field theory, a bit of Euclidean Path Integrals and a teeny tiny look at renormalization)
Probably I'm going for the physics purposes, falling for the quantum gravity meme, but if I get more mathematical connections later I might as well go for that

[Anonymous No.9058255]

>>9058237
aï aï aï aï sorry, *its (instead of it's in the first line)

[Anonymous No.9058265]

>>9058237
By operator algebras I meant things like C* and Von Neumann algebras, though if you prefer QFT to be nice and algebraic then this might be up your alley

https://www.princeton.edu/~hhalvors/aqft.pdf

Although gauge theory is quite general and superconductivity is a facet of it there are other aspects of super conductivity that are completely unknown (it's still a very open field), what I meant was that superconductivity at the level of BCS theory is pretty well understood and as such one could write a pretty good thesis on an overview of the subject. If you're doing statistical physics of fields then one thing you could do is try doing an exposition on the origins of AdS/CFT first coming from calculations by hawking of black hole entropy (also gives a nice way of getting into quantum gravity).

[Anonymous No.9058728]

>>9057993
I assume you've done Feynman diagrams?
Check out the books by Strocchi and Fujiwara for info on non-perturbative methods in QFT.
>>9058237
>Superconductivity falls easily into gauge theories
No, I wouldn't say "easily"; there is no general procedure that maps second-quantized Hamiltonians into quantum field theories. The only one that's been rigorously formalized is the Haldane mapping which maps the universality class of Ising-type models into those of [math]\phi^4[/math] theories.
Superconductivity however can be described and characterized by category theory (https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.05805)), which [math]is[/math] related to holonomies seen in gauge theories. The braiding matrices arising from the holonomies are also used to define Wilson loop variables a la string theory (or vice versa, see https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1889).).
>>9058265
If you're interested in QFT from the constructive/algebraic point of view Baez has a good book on it. Strocchi's book on symmetry breaking also delves into von Neumann algebras and how they're used to generalize Goldstone's and Neother's theorems via spontaneous symmetry breaking.

[Anonymous No.9058766]

>>9058728
That superconductivity/category theory paper actually looks really nice. I know about Baez but Strocchi is new to me, thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.9058808]

>>9057789
You should unironically use LaTeX and Tikz.

[Anonymous No.9058844]

>>9058158
>Peskin and Schroeder
It's a great intro book; other good ones are Bjorken and Drell, and Srednicki.
Don't read Zee btw it's shit.

[Anonymous No.9058881]

>>9058265
Thanks, AQFT looks neat.
>>9058728
Will check out these books, thanks. Also the papers

[Anonymous No.9058979]

>>9058844
why do you need the relative minus sign in first order bhabha scattering? i still don't understand this

[Anonymous No.9058991]

>>9058979
Which part? They're all standard Feynman rules.
If you mean why they're all multiplied by [math]-i[/math] that's because the Wick rotation [math]t \rightarrow -i\tau[/math] gets rid of those prefactors. Sometimes you want to keep track of this prefactor which basically tells you that this is a relativistic QFT and not an Euclidean one.

[Anonymous No.9059044]

>>9058991
I was talking about the minus sign between the s- and t-channel diagrams. Wouldn't the same wick rotation be applied in the case of bosons? Aa far as I can understand it this minus sign only applies to fermions, and it somehow has to do with the anticommutation relations of fermionic creation and annihilation operators.

[Anonymous No.9059052]

>>9059044
>and it somehow has to do with the anticommutation relations of fermionic creation and annihilation operators.
This is correct. The s-channel and t-channel amplitudes are related by a particle permutation, which picks up a minus sign due to the fermionic particle statistics. If you look closely at the s-channel and t-channel diagrams you can see that they're the same graph up to a particle pair permutation. The way I understand it is via spin-statistics theorem, which you can find in Wightman's book on axiomatic QFT. This is basically the same situation as the case in regular QM where you have [math]\Psi(x_1,x_2) = -\Psi(x_2,x_1)[/math].

[Anonymous No.9059090]

>>9059052
Ok ty. The spin-statistics theorem is also in PS i think.

[Anonymous No.9059098]

>>9059090
No problem anon.
>The spin-statistics theorem is also in PS i think.
I don't think it's proven there though. Wightman and Streater constructed an entire axiomatic framework for QFT that is strong enough to prove spin-statistics (but probably also too strong since it can also prove Haag's). Check it out if you're interested.

[Anonymous No.9059107]

Since this is the closest thing to the math general I have to ask, what happened to the math general?

[Anonymous No.9059109]

>>9059107
>physics
>close to math

[Anonymous No.9059137]

>>9057780
I'm not set at Globalfoundries, it was just an example, Id rather prefer Intel.

[Anonymous No.9059211]

Put an end to this madness. What is the answer here?

[Anonymous No.9059216]

>>9059107
This cancerous avatarfag >>9059098 spammed it to shit and the janitor deleted it out of laziness. Please keep him contained in this thread.

[Anonymous No.9059826]

>>9059216
>having a conversation is spamming
Beyond retarded.

[Anonymous No.9059842]

Can anyone explain to me in layman's terms (I've not studied physics past high school) the particle-wave duality of light?

I understand that at different times light can display the properties of particles or waves, but is not really either - but can it be explained what it actually is? Do photons, and packets of photons, have a constantly oscillating electromagnetic profile, and is that why light is wave-like? Or do photons alter the electromagnetic property of the particles they pass through? If the latter, then how is it that electromagnetic radiation can occur through space? Sorry for the confusion, it's my first attempt to understand quantum theory.

[Anonymous No.9059959]

>>9059842
It's pretty much a meme for physicists to laugh upon normal people. There is no such duality. Stuff is quantum (all stuff is quantum (at least as far as we know till now)) and obeys an equation of motion. The solution of the equations of motion for the free thing one would naïvely call a photon (in your terms but generally for the free thing what one would naïvely call a particle) is the same as if the same naïve guy had solved the equation for a wave with "mass" (what's that beast) the same as the particle's. So he says "Voila zis particle iz also a vvave". But once you no longer have the thing free, bamboozle, the whole paragraph above fails. The equations aren't the same and the closest you can come is to say that the thing is a sum over infinitely many "vvaves" each with a certain amplitude

[Anonymous No.9059967]

>>9059842

particle-wave duality comes from the notion that in the absence of observation the "particle" is not localized to one point. Instead, its existence is described by the wave function which is spread out over space and gives us a probabilistic view of where the particle *could* be if we locked it into a localized state.

>have a constantly oscillating electromagnetic profile
not sure what you mean, but photons are quanta of the electric&magnetic fields. They're dutch-ruddered to one-another so a localized change in one of the fields will cause a lagged change in the other. Photons are just travelling excitations within those fields.

Electromagnetic radiation can occur through space because the photon is self-propagating due to the dutch-ruddering of the E&M fields.

[Anonymous No.9059979]

>>9059842
To me there's no sense in worrying about having a physical interpretation when it all just comes down to whether you accept the metaphysical ontology offered by QM (i.e. that all objects are described by their quantum states and not their position/momenta or amplitude/frequency) or not .
The one thing to understand is that duality has a very rigorous mathematical formalization given in constructive QFT a la Baez. Duality is defined to be the theorem that there exists an inner product-preserving orthogonal/unitary map from free boson/fermion fields defined in terms of operator-valued probability distributions to tensor products of Hilbert spaces satisfying bosonic/fermionic statistics, respectively. The former is a formalization of "wave" and the latter that of "particles". There's really no other more precise meaning to "duality".

[Anonymous No.9060122]

>>9059826
>Beyond retarded.
He's probably the one that reported the posts desu

[Anonymous No.9060150]

PSA: >>9056896
I'm glad there are still experimental breakthroughs (however small) in condensed matter, albeit those are just confirming theoretical predictions that are decades old. I think it's an interesting but underrated field.
Of course I myself could never do any experimental lab work so I'll leave it to those that are stuck in experimental cosmology/astrophysics to wake up from their delusions.

[Anonymous No.9060685]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.9061124]

Bumping with a question:
Is there a consise mathematical concept behind "dimensional reduction", resp. "compactification"? As a far as I understand you somehow always assume some sort of symmetry for the solutions of the Euler-Lagrange-equations, i.e. an action of some group on the domain of the solutions that leaves them invariant. This allows for the construction of some other system of E-L-equations with different source and target manifold with the property that the solutions with assumed symmetry are at least contained in the solution set of the new equations, up to fitting diffeos of course. In general, the dimension of the new source manifold is desired to be smaller, but the target might become more complicated.

Can anyone tell me how correct the above is? Also, I'm a mathematician, please don't throw too much heuristics at me physbros.

[Anonymous No.9061356]

>>9061124
This is referred to as the symplectic reduction. Usually this can be done by quotienting out holonomic constraints.
The first few chapters of Woodhouse's book on geometric quantization walk you through these symplectic constructions.

[Anonymous No.9061371]

What does /sci/ think of engineering physics?

[Anonymous No.9061377]

How are the chances to with in the semiconductor industry as physicist?
Is it possible to compete with electrical engineers?

[Anonymous No.9061386]

What's the current state of the art as far as being able to accurately simulate reactor-scale plasmas goes? Including things like bremsstrahlung and cyclotron losses.

>t. engineer

[Anonymous No.9061396]

got a bsc in physics about a month ago. Working at intel. AMA

[Anonymous No.9061401]

>>9061396
What's your salary, what do you do, and did you have to do internships?

[Anonymous No.9061402]

well here goes nothing. been going to college for 4 years (graduate this fall) for bio degree. Well i didnt have any internships or shit just played vidya and went to school and memorized slides cuz bio. Not to be disheartening but I did have some hard courses I took like biochem 2 and differential equations 1. Well I have recently been reevaluating life and I believe I have found a calling for researching stuff. I think I know this for sure because I believe I have found a method of changing blood types using a recombinant enzyme. Right now I am delving into all sorts of algebra and physics I have never seen before because I feel the answer to making my device that can interchange blood types requires knowledge of it.

[Anonymous No.9061408]

>>9061402
>my device that can interchange blood types
Literally how do you deal with the surface antigens being wrong on every cell?

[Anonymous No.9061412]

>>9061401
~73k a year. I graduated in 3 years, so I only did 2 internships. I started out as an astro major and did an REU at a big uni in Cali. The other internship was at Sandia labs, but it was with experimental fluids. My work has nothing to do with either of these internships. I did undergrad research at my uni in optics, and now I'm working in imaging and laser machining

[Anonymous No.9061419]

whats the best books to get into physics from basics to the advanced and current age physics?

[Anonymous No.9061432]

>>9061412
Lucker

[Anonymous No.9061440]

>>9061432
I guess, I had a few offers, this was a largest company though. I still plan to go back to grad school.

[Anonymous No.9061444]

>>9061419
Just read the Landu-Lifshitz series.

[Anonymous No.9061450]

>>9061419
If you don't have any physics background at all, the Feynman Lectures are a good starting point.

[Anonymous No.9061455]

>Bsc finished
>zero internships
>zero coding knowledge or any other further qualification
>zero contact to people, don't know anyone

I'm fucked

[Anonymous No.9061462]

Am I still OK if I have research experience but no internships?

[Anonymous No.9061496]

>>9061450
i do have some physics background (work/force, the 2 rules of thermodynamics) but id rather start from the beginning again just to make sure not to miss a detail

[Anonymous No.9061550]

Daily reminder to work with mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.9061975]

>>9061356
Thanks! I'll have a look into your reference.

[Anonymous No.9062009]

I had a weird year that almost went really ugly with physical/mental health so I'm taking the summer off. I asked a professor if he could help me with finding a summer job and he did but after interviews I turned it down because I realized I really wanted time off. Probably didn't make a great impression but at least I apologised to him in person.

Starting fourth year of udergrad for a Masters this fall so the CV points probably would have been crucial. At least I was involved in research last summer but I'm still pretty anxious about employment. Zero ideas for what to do after graduation. I'm mostly interested in condensed matter stuff.

Thinking about the future mostly makes me want to off myself which makes me think I should have gone with engineering.

[Anonymous No.9062040]

I don't do physics since they arbitrarily make up measuring systems and then invent their own math to force-fit equations using their invented measuring systems, always finding out they have to keep tweaking forever and ever.

I admire engineers and technological enginners though because they take the general 'discoveries' of physicists and make use of them by ignoring the infinite regress that physicists have created when they decided to randomly create measurements.

[Anonymous No.9062080]

>>9062040
How's high school treating ya

[Anonymous No.9062242]

>>9061550
Witten does so we don't have to.

[Anonymous No.9062260]

>>9061496
Depending on your level of math I suggest starting with University Physics by Young and Freedman (requires calculus). After you have gone through that tome of a textbook, feel free to move on to classical mechanics, I suggest Taylor, Morin, or Kleppner for this. After mechanics move on to EM, which you can use Purcell or Griffiths for. If you want, after this you can move on to either thermal or quantum mechanics. If you do thermal,, try out Schroders book (not great but its what my school used) and if you do quantum mechanics try out either Zettili, Shankar, or Grifiiths.

[Anonymous No.9062279]

>>9062260
thanks for the suggestions much appreciated!

[Anonymous No.9062337]

>>9061386
Check out this book.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2Fb97552

[Anonymous No.9062425]

>>9061550
Why is it so difficult to induce collaborations between mathematicians and physicists?
I (math) had a discussion about that topic with a colleague (phys) some time ago, and we came to the conclusion that it fails because both sides stick to their respective dogma and refuse to learn notations/conventions of the other side, thus making it impossible for them to follow their talks and seminars. In particular the students, both undergrad and grad, never really learn to deal with for example coordinate-free formulations (phys) or how to actually calculate stuff in neatly chosen coordinates (math).

[Anonymous No.9062479]

>>9062425
>respective dogma
Right and wrong. Those mathematicians that dislike the supposed "lack of rigor" in physics should also reject statements proven assuming generalized RH/CH.
Physicists of the older generation are more likely to reject fancy mathematical constructs, but I'm sure this is about to change.
>notations/conventions
Have you ever been to a CS conference? Their shit's even more fucked up.

[Anonymous No.9062507]

>>9062479
>the supposed "lack of rigor" in physics
>supposed
>should also reject statements proven assuming generalized RH/CH = I have no idea what a conditional proof is

[Anonymous No.9062512]

>>9062507
Fuck off back to your containment thread.

[Anonymous No.9062519]

>>9051158
Are the Feynman Lectures textbooks or more something for leisure reading?

[Anonymous No.9062522]

>>9062519
something to supplement your understanding of subjects in physics.

[Anonymous No.9062527]

>>9062519
They're definitely not textbooks, as there are no exercise problems included at all. So, the latter.

[Anonymous No.9062531]

>>9062527
>>9062522
I see, that's what I'm looking for.

[Anonymous No.9062540]

Do physicists have something physically wrong with them? Why can't they understand basic things in mathematics?

[Anonymous No.9062619]

>>9057492
One of my professors hated Sakurai with a passion. He claims that it isn't a real book since the second half was copy/pasted from his notes after he died. Whenever I wasn't in the mood for lecture I just mention something semi related to Sakurai and he'd go off on his rant for the rest of lecture. Shit was hilarious.

[Anonymous No.9062628]

>>9059211
A

[Anonymous No.9062644]

>>9062619
>He claims that [...] the second half was copy/pasted from his notes after he died.
Holy shit you talked to your prof's ghost?

[Anonymous No.9062659]

>>9062644
kek

[Anonymous No.9062719]

>>9062479
>>9062507
Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.9062756]

>>9062540
>>9062719
Have your (you) and fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9062830]

>>9062756
You should delete that post. It's too much to bear even for someone of your kind.

[Anonymous No.9062839]

>>9059137
>Intel
>Joining a sinking ship

[Anonymous No.9062840]

>>9062279
I thought Serway/Jewett's physics was fine, try looking through it and Young/Freedman and pick one. You only need a little classical mechanics for quantum, chapters 1,2,8 of Goldstein are good. Thermal isn't that important, you can skip it until you need it. Take a look at waves and vibrations by French, Fourier series and transforms are extremely useful. Complex integrals also show up often, I recommend the section from Nearing's mathematical tools for physics. You need special relativity and some general relativity couldn't hurt. Schutz's book is very good, chapters 1-2 are all you need for special relativity.

[Anonymous No.9062841]

>>9062756
Just ignore the autist until he goes away anon.

[Anonymous No.9062854]

>>9062841
Those mathematicians that dislike the supposed "lack of rigor" in physics should also reject statements proven assuming generalized RH/CH.

[Anonymous No.9062858]

>>9062830
I will delete it if you explain why. I don't understand what you mean when you say "it's too much to bear even for someone of your kind".

[Anonymous No.9062863]

>>9062858
I personally think those mathematicians that dislike the supposed "lack of rigor" in physics should also reject statements proven assuming generalized RH/CH.

[Anonymous No.9062864]

>>9051158
It's going well.

[Anonymous No.9062886]

>>9051158
>how is your work and study going
About as well as the Titanic staying afloat went

[Anonymous No.9062913]

>>9062886
Please don't tell me you believe that bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9062917]

>>9062886
The Titanics isn't real bro lmao that's a movie

[Anonymous No.9062945]

>>9062479
>Have you ever been to a CS conference?
No, but now I want to see whats going on there...
>Those mathematicians that dislike the supposed "lack of rigor" in physics should also reject statements proven assuming generalized RH/CH.
Assuming anything that is not proven (except axioms lol) cannot yield a proof. Any mathematician thinking otherwise is an idiot. Nevertheless, the lack of rigor is a problem in my opinion, since it a) increases the chance of errors and b) makes papers a lot harder to read. It should be at least pointed out when an assumption is used without proof, so that it's easy to see for interested readers what's worth double-checking.

[Anonymous No.9062972]

>>9062945
>Assuming anything that is not proven (except axioms lol) cannot yield a proof.
1 = 0 has no proofs in any sensible system, but you can still assume it and make new proofs.

[Anonymous No.9062996]

>>9062945
> now I want to see whats going on there...
Even just talking to a CS student is a pain in the ass lol.
>the lack of rigor is a problem in my opinion
Well sure, but you have to know that much of the "handwaving" had been rigorously formalized over the past several decades. Things like second quantization, Wick rotation, Wilson loops, chiral Ward identities, functional determinants, gauge fixing/ghosts, even theory of renormalization groupoids etc. all have adequately sound mathematical grounding. Once you've understood them it'd be hard to call all of physics "handwavy".
>a) increases the chance of errors
This I don't agree with. Physics is all about estimating real world phenomena and not about mathematical precision. If making phenomenological heuristics leads to the right description then that can't be considered an "error". Besides, following every single minute mathematical detail isn't guaranteed to lead us to the right physical picture, or even anywhere at all. Indeed (so far) constructive QFT can only define free boson/fermion fields, geometric quantization can only recreate WKB approximations in QM and a rigorous treatment of many-body phenomena can only deal with delta-function interactions.
>b) makes papers a lot harder to read
Depends on what kind of papers I guess. As I said, breakthroughs in physics aren't made with theorems and proofs so you can't expect every single author to cater to what you're used to. There are physics texts (e.g. Lehmann, Bertlmann) that follow the theorem/proposition [math]\rightarrow[/math] proof structure though, which I believe would give mathematicians the physical intuitions needed to read physics papers.
However what I've noticed is that there are more physicists that are willing to deal with this language barrier than mathematicians (this is anecdotal of course). You can't expect us to do all the work in bridging this gap.

[Anonymous No.9063028]

>>9062972
You are correct. Let me try to rephrase that:
Assuming anything without proof can only be used to prove that it is wrong.

Fuck I'm not a logician, you know what I mean, r-right?

>>9062996
Really made me thonk. I'll try to study the texts by Lehmann & Bertlmann as you suggest. But I'm convinced that it would already help mathematicians a lot to quickly say what kind of geometric objects you are dealing with or what kind of properties you want for them, at least in some way, like "when we say lower energy limit of blabla we mean that the object we consider has this and that differential-geometric properties".
I can however confirm that a lot of mathematicians simply don't try to understand things that are not rigorously defined in the beginning, this is in particular true for algebraists and abstract-nonsense-people. And there are a bloody lot of these.

Also
>ghosts

[Anonymous No.9063039]

>>9063028
>Assuming anything without proof can only be used to prove that it is wrong.
Even this is incorrect though. You could assume a conjecture which turns out to be true.
And you could assume false things and just not use them in the proof.
>Fuck I'm not a logician, you know what I mean, r-right?
I think you mean that people shouldn't assume false statements like RH.

[Anonymous No.9063043]

>>9063028
>Assuming anything without proof can only be used to prove that it is wrong.
What?

There's been proofs in mathematics done where to prove a theorem Z it's been shown that a conjecture X being true implies Z and conjecture X being false also implies Z.

[Anonymous No.9063053]

Started learning physics a month ago on my own; just recently got to pulleys.

[Anonymous No.9063102]

>>9063028
>say what kind of geometric objects you are dealing with or what kind of properties you want for them
The problem is that that isn't always possible anon. As I've said rigorous mathematical treatment of physical theories can only go so far and does not have nearly as much predictive power as heuristic theories. For example if I want to do Wilson-Kardanoff renormalization group analysis of a lattice ladder model I would need to do calculations that completely obfuscate the overarching group/groupoid structure, all I'd get at the end is a set of Callan-Symanzik equations that tell me how the renomralized order parameters of the theory flows (which is the bit that physicists write into their papers). Even if I understood how RG works at the level at which the mathematics is established I would not be able to tell you how that would give any insight into this particular situation.
At most what mathematics can get you is the big-picture physical intuition that us physicists gloss over, not the details that actually make it into papers.
>ghosts
Ghosts are auxiliary fields that come up when you fix a specific gauge in gauge space. If we have the space of gauge connections [math]\Omega^1(M)\otimes \mathfrak{g}[/math] we can construct a dirac delta function [math]\delta(F)[/math] for e.g. the Lorent gauge [math]F = 0[/math] and put this into the partition function, expressing it in terms of the Fourier transform [math]\int \mathcal{D}c\mathcal{D}\bar{c}\exp(-i\bar{c}Fc)[/math]. These [math]c[/math] fields are the ghosts. This can be circumvented by treating the space of gauge connections as a symplectic vector space and the Lorenz condition as a holonomic constraint, and only defining your path integral over its symplectic reduction by the holonomic constraint. Ghosts are then completely taken into account non-perturbatively in this case. You can find how to do this in detail in Bertlmann.

[Anonymous No.9063128]

Alright physicsfag this is hard for me so please try not to be cheeky like I know you cunts like to do.
I used to hate on physics because of "muh maths are truth" and "muh logic" but it seems like you guys are having fun.
Anyhow, what book would you recommend to a math undergrad who has literally no knowledge whatsoever in any field related to physics?
What do I start with?

[Anonymous No.9063144]

>>9063102
Thanks for all the detailed answers! I planned on stuying symplectic reduction anyway (again...), since it's important in the applications in physics of my field of research, and now I might literally become a ghostbuster. Wo-hoo!. Will report back, hope this general lasts.

And I'm stealing your image.

[Anonymous No.9063154]

>>9063128
I would like to know as well.

[Anonymous No.9063162]

>>9063144
Good luck anon. Guillemin & Sternberg also has a text on symplectic geometry and geometric quantization that's more focused on applications in physics. If you find Woodhouse to be too fast paced you could supplement it with G&S.

[Anonymous No.9063187]

>>9063128
>>9063154
thirded

[Anonymous No.9063382]

>>9062996
>This I don't agree with. Physics is all about estimating real world phenomena and not about mathematical precision. If making phenomenological heuristics leads to the right description then that can't be considered an "error". Besides, following every single minute mathematical detail isn't guaranteed to lead us to the right physical picture, or even anywhere at all.
Eh, I'm inclined to disagree slightly, for most cases yes a mathematically rigorous foundation won't necessarily lead to physical insight but they elucidate how and why certain things work and why they might fail, one example being navier stokes in which an analysis about the existence of singularities would help understand how to modify them and maybe tell us more about turbulence (I say this since tao proved the averaged navier stokes has blow up solutions) or another one showing that there exists solutions of the euler lagrange equations that satisfy very physical conditions that are zero everywhere for a fixed time, then suddenly nonzero and then zero everywhere again, something you'd certainly not expect. To this end the most important example would likely be noether's theorem.

[Anonymous No.9063420]

>>9063128
The canonical example that is usually given is the feynman lectures (yeah, kind of meme but they're by no means bad, LL is god tier though), they introduce a lot basic concepts in physics with some insights into how a physicist thinks about things and how one might go about understanding the natural world, he also has some other books and videos that are pretty nice as well

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLzGzdSNup63lMYeOpU9Hax6MBsTjdDas

. A PDE book might actually help, understanding how naturally the study of physical laws inspires and is connected with the study of PDE's might help you appreciate what's going on "under the hood", a cute example being the derivation of the diffusion equations via ficks law and stokes theorem (a book I really like for this sort of thing is Arnold's book https://loshijosdelagrange.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/v-arnold-mathematical-methods-of-classical-mechanics-1989.pdf ). If you want something more general and thematic then Roger Penrose has some good books that introduce you to elegant ideas in theoretical physics and how mathematics is connected with them (I like road to reality even if there are some errors and it kind of gets pretty speculative at the end). This series of lectures gives a nice overview for undergrads of some topics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4eX4SGl1pw
also just a nice video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhlSqwZBW1M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CnWPB5aYUw
The jerking off of yang is a bit annoying but hey, he's yang, if you're gonna jerk someone off might as well have it be a great physicist (though there are many better that didn't get proper recognition *cough* Tom Kibble *cough*). Another nice set of videos that introduce mathematical concepts with a view towards their underlying physical reasoning is this
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7aXC0jU4Qk7K778c5nmgQImd6VKKFMYu
If you be more specific on what it is you want to know about I can help you out more.

[Anonymous No.9063430]

>>9063128
Learn basic physics. Serway/Jewett, Feynman lectures, etc.
Goldstein's classical mechanics. Chapters 1,2, and 8 are the most important.
Schutz's general relativity. Chapters 1-3 are fine for special relativity. Up through 8 for general relativity.
Quantum mechanics. Griffiths, Shankar, and Sakurai are all good. Sakurai should be read after the others.
Quantum Field Theory. Tong's notes, Lahiri/Pal, Peskin/Schroeder, Srednicki.

[Anonymous No.9063471]

>>9063430
>>9063420
>If you be more specific on what it is you want to know about I can help you out more.
nothing specific really, though I'd probably wanna start with some basic solid mechanics.
I'm gonna download all of these, probably gonna start with Feynman since he's my brainlet brethren.

[Anonymous No.9063484]

>>9063471
Feynman is online here
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

[Anonymous No.9063578]

Ok guys, I've been getting burnt out from grad school lately. I'm still hanging on but I'm getting more and more tempted to grab my M.A. and call it quits. What jobs are available to someone with a physics M.A.?

[Anonymous No.9063592]

>>9063578
>M.A.
>A

[Anonymous No.9063605]

>>9051158
Does biophysics count? If so my cellular force modeling method development went really well and I'm presenting it tomorrow. When I get back home I'm gonna go back to work on my protein metal affinity models.

[Anonymous No.9063783]

Has anyone here tried to get into computer science related research areas like machine learning?
Is it possible with a physics degree?

[Anonymous No.9064006]

>>9062945
>Assuming anything that is not proven (except axioms lol) cannot yield a proof. Any mathematician thinking otherwise is an idiot.
It's called a conditional proof, you mathematically illiterate clowns. It's queued up work, that's all. Proofs done in advance. If the conjecture they're based on will be proven false at some point in the future, then that result will be invalidated, but if it will be proven right, then its proof will immediately imply all the other results that were conditionally proved from that conjecture.

There is absolutely nothing unrigorous about it. The analogy was idiotic.

[Anonymous No.9064076]

>>9063605
One of my colleagues does experimental soft condensed matter, mostly with synthetic proteins (he's very bubbly and cute, which is a trend I've noticed with soft condensed matter people). I've actually also had a chance to work with a prof who specialized in polymers during my MSc, and it surprised me with how closely his work is related to characterization and tiling problems via e.g. Frank-Kasper fullerenes. Aside from that there are also an unexpected number of stat mech analogues of QM phenomena, e.g. the Berry phase/Aharonov-Bohm effect, that can be found in soft condensed matter.
Though what little work I have done is mostly computational and superficial I still think it's a pretty interesting field. Also there's [math]a ~lot[/math] of money in it.

[Anonymous No.9064106]

>>9063605
>>9064076
How is biophysics? Been doing some research as an undergrad and I'm still looking for something more computational that isn't atmospheric. Future look good? Would it be doable without a big biology background more lots of physics?

[Anonymous No.9064118]

>>9064106
>Future look good? Would it be doable without a big biology background more lots of physics?
You'll be fine. Tons of industry needs it and you can pick up the bio along the way.

[Anonymous No.9064124]

>>9064118
Is it particularly coding heavy?

[Anonymous No.9064129]

>>9064124
Yes, even in theoretical.

[Anonymous No.9064137]

>>9064129
Sounds like it might be my kind of thing then, thanks. I'll try looking more into my uni about it.

[Anonymous No.9064259]

Here are two interesting things for you to think about:
1- Two particles are entangled. One of them is put on board of a rocket that reaches relativistic speeds and is then measured.
2- A wormhole has two ends. One of the ends is taken to the proximity of a blackhole and then someone walks through it.
Aren't these examples of time travel back in time?

[Anonymous No.9064273]

>>9064259
1. Entanglement is a phenomenon in non-relativistic QM. In relativistic QFT your scenario is forbidden by the microcausality axiom and the clustering theorem in Wightman QFT. Space-like separated observables commute and their expectations factor, so entanglement cannot occur between them.
2. Sure if wormholes are real lmao.

[Anonymous No.9064480]

Guys. Ever met anyone that doesn't fanboy Feynman?

[Anonymous No.9064506]

any polymer physics here?

[Anonymous No.9065024]

/pg/, what books would you recommend to get go from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics?
I know calculus and stuff but I probably need a refresher in linear algebra first

I thought id ask here instead of making an entire thread

[Anonymous No.9065160]

>>9065024
Griffith's, Shankar and Sakurai are pretty standard texts to get someone started with QM.

[Anonymous No.9065424]

>>9064076
Soft condensed matter is super cool! I was thinking about doing my Ph.D in something related to that if I didn't go into more method development directions. I've found I'm really good at weaseling out how to make a procedure for a problem and what is important to make it work right, combined with my ability to digest massive amounts of information in a short period of time and I can get a lot done.

>>9064106
Good luck! It's really fun and it tends to be coding heavy although there are parts that are less coding and more advanced applications of physical properties in systems. The biology can be picked up along the way but make sure to be thorough about it cause it may seem easy compared to physics but the breadth of information needed is staggering compared to any other field.

[Anonymous No.9065482]

V=Vo+A.t

[Anonymous No.9065487]

>>9065482
You forgot to attach your Apu pic.

[Anonymous No.9065752]

Feel free to join the /pg/ discord server: https://discord.gg/ZTJmJM..
>>9065424
>tfw no soft condensed matter bf

[Anonymous No.9065782]

>>9051835

[Anonymous No.9066283]

Bamp.

[Anonymous No.9066503]

Realistically, how difficult would it be for an undergrad math grad to learn undergrad physics curriculum by himself? Not sure how much of a handicap not doing any labs would be.

[Anonymous No.9066516]

>>9059211
A but would be B if the blue portal didn't stop moving

[Anonymous No.9066539]

>>9066529
Plox answer

[Anonymous No.9066637]

Can somebody give me a 101 physics textbook that is simply quintessential for beginners?

[Anonymous No.9066696]

I've just turned 18, on my final year of school
My high school doesn't teach physics and calculus
I've decided to study physics and calculus in my own spare time and attempt physics at the school exams in november
Since I have limited spare time to study physics and exams are in 3 months, which are the most important topics in physics for me to study?
Should I attempt the two biggest physics papers and aim for good marks (mechanics and electricity/magentism) or should I study all 3 exam papers offered (mechanics, electricity/magnetism, and wave systems) and aim to pass
Mechanics paper when passed gives 6 credits, electricity/magentism paper passed gives 6 credits, wave systems paper passed gives 4 credits.
Which physics topics are the most important to learn if I want to attempt a physics course at university?

[Anonymous No.9066700]

>the avatarfagging and unfiltered autism ITT
Why /math/ is undisputedly superior.

[Anonymous No.9066729]

>>9066700
There is just one avatarfag here and he posts in /mg/ too. At least this thread is about physics.

[Anonymous No.9066736]

>>9058008
Did a QFT module at my uni final year (UK)

[Anonymous No.9066740]

>>9058008
>>QFT
>>Undergrad
>These two things do not go together.
Why do so many people on /sci/ do this (acting like the way their university did things is universal for some reason)?

[Anonymous No.9066744]

>>9066637
someone halp this request?

[Anonymous No.9066746]

>>9063578
McDonald's, burger king, Starbucks,... Loads of options!

[Anonymous No.9066750]

>>9066744
Start with classical mechanics, just use Google to find out which textbooks, download them tru libgen, compare and pick one and stick with it until the end.

Or use the Feynman lectures if you're more interested in something more intuitive, but it's not really a textbook.

[Anonymous No.9066751]

Bump

[Anonymous No.9066782]

>>9066696
Could someone please answer?

[Anonymous No.9066875]

>>9065752
>discord
You truly are subhuman.

[Anonymous No.9066919]

>>9066700
This thread is merely a "covert op".

[Anonymous No.9067329]

>>9066782
No.

[Anonymous No.9067545]

>>9066637
Feynman lectures were made for beginners, so is walter lewin's lectures
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCliSRiiRVQuDfgxI_QN_Fmw/playlists
Walter's assumes you know calc though, still good, still a beginner's course
>>9066696
If you're in the united states AP exams usually tell you what's going to be on the exams and the material needed to study, there are old exams online so you can practice using them. Focus on mechanics and EM, if you're comfortable with those then try for waves. Walter Lewin's lectures will also work for you after you learn some calc.

[Anonymous No.9067566]

>>9062839
why is it a sinking ship?

[Anonymous No.9067628]

>Half thread is full of Chinese cartoons
I didn't knew that Computer (((Science))) Brainlet virgin fags are also doing Physics

FUCK OFF OUR MAJOR
PHYSICS IS ONLY FOR ALPHAS

[Anonymous No.9067825]

>>9067628
>didn't knew

[Anonymous No.9067948]

Hi /pg/

I'm a mathematics undergraduate student. Is it possible for me to go to graduate school in physics? Assuming I self-teach myself mechanics and do well on the GRE?

[Anonymous No.9067966]

>>9067948
Do you know what you want to study though? It's definitely possible but mechanics probably won't be enough. Profs usually don't like to pay for nothing while you spend time trying to catch up.

[Anonymous No.9067969]

>>9067966

I do not, but when I finish my bachelors next year, I will have studied (I assume) all the relevant maths. Is it really such a leap to simply dive into physics after that?

[Anonymous No.9067988]

>>9067969
Research in physics is much more than knowing just the relevant maths. That certainly helps but much of it relies on physical intuition. There's no time for proofs so to speak.
I think it's best to just shoot some profs emails asking about their research and your prospects.

[Anonymous No.9068007]

>>9067988
thanks

[Anonymous No.9068149]

>>9067948
You need more than mechanics. At least quantum mechanics is necessary for anyone to take you seriously. Look at Griffiths, Shankar, and Sakurai.

[Anonymous No.9068524]

Why is a physics bachelors on its own such a meme compared to a math bachelors? I know there are physics PhDs working on very interesting engineering problems in industry, but it seems like if you don't plan to go to grad school you are just shooting yourself in the foot with the physics degree.

[Anonymous No.9068568]

>>9068524
>Blindly believing in people on the internet
>Not verifying the fact of the matter yourself
>Not double checking all resources and eliminating inconsistencies
>Not being proactive in pursing such question to university professors and graduates
>/sci/ 2017

[Anonymous No.9068575]

>>9068568
nice strawman

[Anonymous No.9068578]

>>9068575
That whole post is a strawman though:
>A meme compared to a math bachelors...
By who?
>Working on very interesting engineering prooblems...
Like what?
>Seems like if you don't plan...
How does it ''seems'', how are you "seeing it"
>Shooting yourself in the foot...
According to who?

Low IQ effort post all semantics considered

[Space Tiger No.9068586]

>>9051158
Currently studying at Mizzou. Will be a Junior in August. I have been working with a former astronaut, I have some pretty nice telescopes for research (not huge or ground breaking, but pretty okey dokey), and I and reviving another telescope in September.

[Anonymous No.9068590]

please put a leash on the retarded 2huposter
thank you

[Anonymous No.9068779]

>>9067628
>didn't knew

[Anonymous No.9068864]

>>9067545
Thanks man
Even though I'm not American, the laws of physics are the same worldwide so your advice would apply in my country as well
I'll concentrate on mechanics and EM (electromagentism?) for the exams, but will also study waves if I have time
I'll watch Walter Lewin's lectures to begin learning calculus

[Anonymous No.9068916]

>>9068864
Good luck anon, be sure to do plenty of practice problems as well.

[Anonymous No.9069447]

Any special music you listen to while studying/doing research physicsbros?
I usually listen to Vivaldi and a colleague of mine listens to Prokofiev .

[Anonymous No.9069496]

>>9069447
I usually use something like this
https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachines/rainNoiseGenerator.php

[Anonymous No.9069545]

Finished my bachelors in Switzerland. Feels guud m9.

Now starting master lectures. Already did introduction to QFT and Quantum Information. Was sick.

[Anonymous No.9069587]

>>9069545
What is your research? Quantum computing?

[Anonymous No.9070438]

>>9069496
That's the same as nothing to me.

[Anonymous No.9070736]

>>9069447
Vivaldi is the pop of classical

[Anonymous No.9071126]

>>9063128
Borrow high school physics books from your local library

[Anonymous No.9072097]

>>9065752
>https://discord.gg/ZTJmJM

Do you mind reposting the Discord link?

Also, any TQC and TQFT recommendations for someone coming from a more "mundane" Berry phase in materials and CMFT background?

[Anonymous No.9072101]

>>9051158
I'm excited to take quantum I next semester! I actually am doing a phys/compsci joint major, so I don't need quantum II, but I'm taking it regardless as one of my electives.

Any recommendations on what to look into if I want to do grad school with a focus on quantum computing? I've looked into quantum information textbooks and I'm on good terms with a prof whose research group looks at qubit encoding, so I try to attend their weekly journal club meetings

[Anonymous No.9072103]

>>9069447
pink noise! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXtimhT-ff4

[Anonymous No.9072120]

Hey /pg/ I'm about to enter my last year of undergrad and I don't know what to do. I have good grades and a decent relationship with professors but no research experience and I have no idea what I want to do after undergrad. I'm thinking of going to grad school, but I don't really know what I want to study. Physics and Math are both fun though and I think my problem is that I'd have a good time doing anything within both fields.

So basically I'm confused about my future.

[Anonymous No.9072130]

>>9072120

probably go into using computers for physics/math

[Anonymous No.9072132]

>>9072097
https://discord.gg/sTMe8tn
Here's the physics channel.

[Anonymous No.9072139]

>>9069447
https://youtu.be/3XT_zC1n58I

[Anonymous No.9072167]

>>9072130
I've thought about going into scientific computing, but I haven't really enjoyed my programming classes much (even my computational physics class).

[Anonymous No.9072484]

>>9069447
Kanye West.

[Anonymous No.9073099]

Is metaphysics a meme

[Anonymous No.9073343]

What kind of job can a post grad in Particle Physics land in
Assuming research is over-satiated

[Anonymous No.9073374]

>>9073343
Any Starbucks or McDonald's of your choice, 12k starting.

[Anonymous No.9073564]

>>9073343
A lot of high energy PhD grads I know that left academia ended working in data science.

[Anonymous No.9073949]

>>9073343
Lots of grad students advised by a prof I know went on to become quants.

[Anonymous No.9074065]

>>9055885
If you can get to like 850+ on physics GRE and have some research experience you should have a shot

[Anonymous No.9074323]

>>9062425

>t fails because both sides stick to their respective dogma and refuse to learn notations/conventions of the other side

Or because it, you know, hard and w only have 80 years on average to spend working on stuff. Even mathematicians from different fields often don't understand the notation.

[Anonymous No.9075139]

Looking forward to Modern Physics in the fall and beyond that I still need to pick a physics elective. Any suggestions? I'm doing EE/Physics dual major

[Anonymous No.9076058]

Why is physics discussion so lethargic?

[Anonymous No.9076521]

>>9076058
Lack of shitposters probably.

[Anonymous No.9076537]

Physics bachelor here, graduating in a year.

What can I actually do with my degree /sci/? I am interested in industry as research is shit tier at sub-top 20 Unis as we all know and I wanna make $$$. I wanna add some skills to specialize and make progress doable in a specific area.

What are do you suggest and what would those skills be? Eg, I can easily do finance if I have knowledge of programming. What else is there?

t. concerned potential NEET

[Anonymous No.9076544]

>>9075139
Thermal.
>>9076537
Get into the financial sector.

[Anonymous No.9076603]

>>9076537

Engineering, software development, and data analytics jobs are far more common for bachelors grads than finance jobs, especially for quant positions which pretty much require a higher degree nowadays.

If I hadn't gone to grad school I probably would have learned some machine learning and jumped into data science.

[Anonymous No.9076624]

>>9072120
Talk to one of the profs you know and do a thesis class with him as supervisor. If you can't then just do something with him informal on the side over the next semester. This way he can at least write you a unique recommendation letter for employers/grad admission.

[Anonymous No.9076669]

>>9072484
kek

[Anonymous No.9076849]

Any basic texts in Biological Physics? Wanna check out what the field's like.

[Anonymous No.9077220]

>>9064076
>Though what little work I have done is mostly computational and superficial
Of course. It's physics.

[Anonymous No.9077381]

Let's band together and make a miniature blackhole bomb to eliminate North Korea /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9078262]

>someone tries to be actually helpful
>retards sperg out at him
>punishes the person instead of the retards
/sci/ moderation in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.9078596]

>>9078262
Avatarfags need to be publicly hanged.

[Anonymous No.9079775]

>>9078262
>be an avatarfag which is against global rules
>insist on being an avatarfag despite this derailing any conversation you're a part of
>get moderated when people report you for breaking global rules
>bitch about being persecuted

If you weren't just hungry for attention and just wanted to discuss things you'd post without your anime girls. But some people need to be unique snowflakes and then wonder why they're singled out.

[Anonymous No.9079878]

>>9078262
I agree, it shouldn't be the /sci/ mods punishing you, it should be your Taiwanese dog-eating parents. It's about time they taught their kid proper manners.

[Anonymous No.9079958]

>>9055116
My suggestion is to go geophysics for bachelor then after getting some money get a masters in physics covering the subjects you missed in undergrad

[Anonymous No.9080104]

>>9056709
sure, string theory seems to check out but it may never have a direct experiment proving it but there's a lot of theorical work being done in more practical fields

[Anonymous No.9080259]

>>9057682
Shankar is really the best compromise. He does all the math that sakurai does without all the "proof is left to the reader". Much better for an introduction.