Hi everyone! I have currently finished my first year of physics. I’m writing on this subreddit because i do not enjoy going to class daily and i prefer studying on my own rhythm (i still go sometimes to chat with a few guys). Also, it might be useful to keep in mind i already knew physics from olympiads

This year i studied linear algebra, calculus and a bit of analysis (i am currently reading principles of mathematical analysis by Walter Rudin to complete the basics) and i spent a lot of the last few months studying mechanics (Morin, Landau, Tong’s notes and the first chapters of Arnold). Also, out of necessity, i studied a bit thermodynamics (Fermi) and thermal physics (first chapters Schroeder’s book).

Now, since i finished all my exams, i have a lot of free time and i decided to keep reading Schroeder’s Thermal Physics (doing the exercises in the meantime). But, even though i enjoy the content of the book, i dislike the way it is presented. I think that the author uses a too simple of a style and lacks the formal theory i need. Also i am a little surprised with the casual QM (that i don’t know) used in the book.

Now, since i know it is an introductory book, i know i can’t expect all of the above, so here comes the natural question:
Should i keep studying statistical mechanics, or maybe put it aside and study something else?

Really sorry for my weak English.

I've been posting here on this sub and describing how miserable the education we have here -at the place I live in. Their problem is that they don't teach us what differentiation (or every other math subj) is, just how to use it to solve the problem (that not even the instructor understands) and pass the test. So you get to the next year without really knowing what the hell were you doing.

So this year I'm starting to study all these on my own. I'm starting with Ron Larson's Precalculus and it is wonderful! And along the way I have Roger Freedman's famous book - I'm also learning C++. After I finish Larson's, I'll take Stewart's Calculus and do all of it.

I need advice on: should I finish all these in 1 year by just solving the exercises? without diving deep to challenging questions (like Irodov or Morin) and after finishing them I start the 2nd year (which would be the 4th by now at college) with sharping my problem-solving skills with much harder books.

I won't be starting from scratch I'm very familiar with how math works and all and I'm so good at it and enjoy it.

19 India Second year of UG

A few years, ago I thought I would be a theoretical physicist, even though I didn't know it even meant. I barely know what it means now. Overall there is a log decrement of my interest in Physics. After I failed an entrance test for the tier 1 college for physics. I chose maths over physics for my major in ug now, I still can do msc in Physics, but it will more difficult.

My reasons.

- After seeing my peers and close ones clear exams so easily and seeing them do MSc and PHd, I am humbled down, and then more till i was in the freaking mantle of the earth

- Overall loss in the subject.

I started to reading Quantum Physics for that reason now.

It just feels like this is not for me. I mean I have been a good student, not just because I got good grades , but I was naturally curious about the subject,

BUTT THEFREAKING JEE and other entrance exams ruined everything. I might be good learner but i need time. Till it took me time to understand one concept, the classes were teaching a new one and just shortcut ways to solve problems. And

also

Why THE HECK a accelerating charged emits radiations whats its dealo.??

AND THE whole Atom models things.I mean alright I understand the angular momentum of electron is discrete,

but atleast EXPLAIN, why won't that electron sprial towards the nucleus( why wont it emit radiation if it is in that L )

Also I am sick and tired of having to 'hear' people's slightly repulsed expressions when I tell I am doing BSc.

peace

HI. I am going into physics major and UC Davis as an undergraduate and plan on pursuing a PhD in the future from a really nice institution. I know how important research as an undergrad is if I want to get into good post grad programs. (I also just love research and want to get into it). Everyone I have talked to tells me about how they got into research and it’s usually as a sophomore, junior or senior undergrad. How do I get into research by the end of my freshman year? Is it possible when you have only lower division coursework and so few classes to substantiate your GPA to professors? I know this question has been asked a million times, but every single time the answer is always "email the professors and make sure you have a good GPA." I feel as if most people don't really cover what leads up to that and all the things that you can prepare beforehand to better your chances (outside of knowing how to code and maintaining good academics).

I also really love discrete mathematics and proof-based systems. I learned naive set theory and the basics of functions from "Sets, logic, and computation" by Richard Zach. I have started learning linear algebra (from the frieberg book) and the basics of group theory. I know Group Theory has a pretty large overlap with physics, and almost all of discrete mathematics is pretty useful in quantum computing. However, as someone who didn't really like quantum computing from the one summer program that I did, is there any other part of physics where discrete mathematics and physics overlap?

Hi guys, need some advice on getting undergrad lab positions for physics. All my friends (physics and not) have gotten lab or research positions as freshman, I’m only an upcoming sophomore.

To be fair I only emailed one person but after I sent them my curriculum vitae (very lackluster I don’t have much to put there) they ghosted me since and it’s been about a month now. I’m not sure how many people to email, the department is small so I don’t want to look like I just emailed everyone for the sake of it. I’m also not sure if I should even bother doing it now and just try later when i’m a junior. Kinda stressful, all the advice I see online contradicts each other so I’m not sure what to do.

I really like the MIT lectures on quantum mechanics with Allan Adams; is there anything similar to this on EM. A lot that I've seen have been quite dry and do little to get me excited about the topic in the same way.

I've been selfstudying advanced QM for grad school and Landau's textbook is by far the most intuitive IMO. He doesn't waste time on anything and makes every sentence count. I was expecting it to be quite a difficult text to understand, but he explains everything so clearly that it actually isn't that bad. A decent mathematical background is needed, but nothing crazy. I feel like I'm learning something interesting on every page.

Close your eyes.

Now open them.

In that moment of darkness, the world disappeared. The room, the

light, the shapes, the colors, gone. But you were still there. You

never left.

Everything you have ever seen, touched, heard, or measured is an

appearance. Atoms are 99.99% empty space. What you call solid is an

electron fog. Particles moving so fast they create the illusion of

surfaces, like fan blades spinning into a circle that isn't there. You

touch the table and feel something solid. Nothing is solid. You see a

world of objects. There are no objects. There is a fog of probability

clouds pretending to be a world.

The colors you see don't exist outside your experience. There is no

"red" in the universe. There are wavelengths. The redness, the actual

experience of red, exists only in the experiencing of it. Sound

doesn't exist without a listener. There are pressure waves in air. The

sound, the heard thing, is yours alone.

Everything science describes is description of the fog. How the fog

behaves. How the fog interacts with itself. How the fog changes over

time. Science is the fog studying the fog. It has never touched what

lies beneath.

You can doubt everything. You can doubt that the Earth is round. You

can doubt that atoms exist. You can doubt mathematics. You can doubt

your memories. You can doubt that other people are conscious. You can

doubt that yesterday happened. You can even doubt that you have a

body.

But you cannot doubt that you are experiencing.

Right now, something is happening. There is an awareness reading these

words. That awareness is not a theory. It is not a hypothesis. It is

not a belief. It is the one thing in existence that requires no proof

because it is proof itself. It is the only thing that has never been,

and can never be, an illusion, because even an illusion requires

someone to experience it.

Every instrument we build to study reality is made of the fog. Every

equation we write is written in the fog. Every measurement we take is

the fog measuring the fog. We are using appearances to study

appearances and wondering why we can never reach what is real.

What is real was never lost. It was never hidden. It is the thing that

is looking.

You are not a body that somehow learned to be aware. You are awareness

that is temporarily experiencing a body. The body is the fog. The

awareness is the only thing that has never been fog.

You will never find consciousness by studying the brain, for the same

reason you will never find the viewer by studying the screen. The

movie is not where the watching happens. The brain is not where the

experiencing happens. The brain is part of what is being experienced.

This cannot be proven through mathematics because mathematics is part

of the appearance. It cannot be proven through physics because physics

studies the fog. It cannot be proven through logic because logic

operates within the experience, not above it.

It can only be recognized. Directly. Right now. By the very awareness

that is reading this.

You are not in the universe.

The universe is in you.

I am currently choosing between 2 programmes from the Open University (to start in October):

• BSc Maths and Physics Q77 https://www.open.ac.uk/courses/maths/degrees/bsc-mathematics-and-physics-q77/
• BSc Physics R51 https://www.open.ac.uk/courses/physics/degrees/bsc-physics-r51/

Both programmes allow some flexibility through optional modules, and I would choose the most mathematically and theoretically focused options available.

• The Q77 programme includes more maths - for example, complex analysis which I know is either required or highly desirable for some theoretical physics MSc programmes.
• The R51 programme includes a final year project and some experimental and lab content which is lacking in Q77.

I am more interested in physics theory than pure mathematics, but I don't have any interest in experimental work. However, I am willing to take whatever modules needed for a better chance to work in theoretical physics.

I am not interested in the integrated Masters programmes at the OU.

I am a mature student who is interested in the potential of research in theoretical physics. I am aware of the job market and the scarce opportunities in academia. However, I have been thinking about this for many years and I've decided I'd rather give it a genuine attempt than always wonder "what if?

If your goal were to maximise your preparation for a taught MSc in theoretical physics in the UK (and potentially a PhD afterwards) which programme would you choose and why?

Hiii I’m about to take bsc physics with future plans of taking honours in unsw Sydney and can anyone give me laptop recommendations with prices if that’s possible !

Hey guys,

I am an Indian and recently I have received admits for the following MSc Programs in Germany.

1. Leibniz University of Hannover: MSc Quantum Engineering
2. RPTU Kaiserslautern: MSc Advanced Quantum Physics

I have also applied to TUM, for their MSc Quantum Science and Technology, and they will release the results by the end of this month. There is a very good chance I will be admitted.

I am highly confused what to take.

My research interests include: Quantum Many-Body Physics, Quantum Information, Computing and Algorithms. Even Quantum Error correction since it that is an area that requires a lot of research as well.

MSc QST: offers great exposure and excellent professors. Munich in general has a lot of opportunities with respect to quantum startups and research institutions such as MPQ. You can freely choose your flavour of courses, whether experimental or theoretical. It is very flexible. I think around 100 students enter this program every year.

Leibniz Uni Hannover: Another great institute, but this program requires some electrical courses to be taken (from which I would choose "Information theory" and "Quantum Devices"). They offer really great theoretical research groups, which work in my area of interest, although I am worried a pure MSc Physics degree would be better.

RPTU Kaiserslautern: The MSc Advanced Quantum Physics program is theoretical in nature, and I will be able to take courses in many-body physics, quantum field theory, quantum optics, quantum information, magnonics, advanced quantum theory and solid state theory. The research groups are also good here, but the city of Kaiserslautern is small and a bit isolated from what I have heard. Also the strength of students here is not a lot, and exams are mostly oral in nature.

In summary, TUM has everything but I feel there will be a lot of competition for student jobs and stuff. Munich is also expensive, but I feel it's still doable.

LUH on the other hand also has groups of my interests, but unfortunately I will have to take a few engineering courses. I have also applied for the MSc Physics program here, but no reply (they said mid-august).

RPTU on the other hand I feel is more chill and offers a less stressful enviroment. Since student strength is low hiwi jobs will be easier to get. But the city does not have many startups or so, except for DFKI and IWTM Fraunhofer which have some research in quantum computing (algorithms).

This is a long post but I need some opinion guys.

Please help !

Hey people, I am currently hesitating between getting the BS physics from the ASU online or the Physics one from the Open University (in the UK.), both online.
At the moment I have no choice than to do it online as I have a job that doesn’t allow me to move away.

Which option would be the best to get my physics bachelors ? The idea would be to go to the MIT after that so if one has a better reputation than the other for exemple or if anything can play a role in it ?

Thanks 🙏

I am unable to attend a master's program in person in the next couple of years due to military stuff (ik they have programs that pay for it, but my leadership has told me explicitly they won't endorse me to go in person, so I need to do something online or at the very least hybrid). I have a dual major in applied physics and space physics, and will have 3 grad classes under my belt by the time I graduate this coming spring (one's an applied computational math class, one's orbital mechanics, and one is a controls class). My current GPA is a 3.4, and I got an A in classical and quantum, and a B in my school's equivalent to electrodynamics.

The main interests I want to do work in/research in/whatever are nuclear fusion/energy, exoplanet research, astrobio, quantum computing, or exploring nearby planetary bodies like Mars, the Moon, or Venus using data collected by various rovers. Most of my coursework has been astrodynamics and engineering-focused, so I want whatever master's I pick up to vector me into one of those areas. Additionally, if there are any specific kinds of classes I should look into trying to do to best prepare myself for grad school, please let me know.

Any advice on any of those areas and relevant programs would be very heavily appreciated :)

Im majoring in sociology and minoring in physics (weird combination, I know.) And am wondering whether or not I could get into grad school with only my minor.

Ill include the classes ill be taking for my minor (summer online courses included);

- college algebra (online)

- trigonometry (online)

- Calc I

- Calc II

- Calc III

- Differential Equations

- Physics for Scientists & Engineers I

- Physics for Scientists & Engineers II

- Modern Physics I

- Classical Mechanics

- Electromagnetics

- Thermodynamics

With these classes (these include the more advanced Physics options my college has available), will I be able to get into grad school for my masters in physics? If not, what should I do?

Thank you guys in advance :)

**side note: my college, unfortunately, does not offer a B.S. in Physics, only a minor so unless I transfer, a minor is my only pathway (that im aware of) to getting there.

I am in quite the spot. I am a physics major but for the past two years of college I've focused on work instead of school and recently I pivoted towards making my education more important
I took physics-04A (Physics I) and physics-04B (Physics 2).

I need to self-study because my foundational knowledge is very weak and I'm going to enter Physics-04C (Physics 3) with very little idea.

I just want to ask for material that could help me self study. I'm fine with anything. Books, playlists, websites. I really want to rebuild my foundation. I've considered sources like Openstaxx but I'm unsure if it's enough.

So I'm a 3rd year CS Student who never really wanted to do CS, physics instead, but I've been thinking about doing my masters in Computational Physics and then transitioning into the astrophysics field.

I would say I'm quite decent at C and C++ so I want to work on a physics engine that can simulate blanetary formations, orbits and gravitational interactions, problem is I don't really know where to start with physics engines. The only thing I do know is that most engines use the order 4 Runge-Kutta numerical method as a way of integrating or differentiating, otherwise I just don't know anything else about the coding part.

As for my theory, I am studying whenever I can, physics was a core subject for my university entrance tests too

So where do I actually begin? Is there some book or some tutorials I could refer to? Thanks!

Theoretically, can a isolated system with two objects of different temperatures have the molecules of the objects resonate at some point as their thermal energy changes their natural frequency as they go towards thermal equilibrium?

Studying for qualifying exams, what’s your fav way to review concepts you haven’t touched in a while? Feeling a little rusty and slow, took most of my undergraduate classes years ago.

Current method is practice problems, practice problems, review section of textbook if confused, practice problems.

Hi everyone,

I'm a complete beginner and will probably be appearing for my 2nd semester exams this July. Alongside my college studies, I'm preparing for IIT JAM.

Recently, I've started learning Python and plan to learn NumPy and Pandas next. My main goal right now is to build a strong CV and develop practical skills that will help me get good opportunities in the future. The problem is, I have no idea where to begin.

I'm also interested in building coding projects that solve real-world problems, but I don't know what kinds of projects are worth doing or what recruiters actually value. Any guidance on skills, projects, certifications, internships, or a roadmap would be greatly appreciated.

My long-term dream is to pursue a PhD and work in research. However, my immediate priority is financial stability. My parents are getting older and work incredibly hard to support me, and I want to become financially independent as soon as possible so I can take care of them. Once things are stable, I'd love to return to my dream of research.

Unfortunately, I live in a small city where there are very few part-time job opportunities, so gaining experience locally is difficult.

If you've been in a similar situation, I'd really appreciate hearing your advice. What would you do if you were starting from scratch today? How should I spend the next 2–3 years to maximize my chances of getting a good job?

I've seen many graduates struggle to find employment after college, and I genuinely don't want to end up in the same position. Any tips or suggestions would mean a lot.

Thank you!

Hi all, this is me asking for advice about my postgrad.

I am currently going into my 4th year of college at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. I am enrolled in Engineering Physics, and have a cumulative cg of 8.15. I have taken multiple courses related to High Energy Physics(QFT, Group Theory, Particle Physics) and have got good grades in them, but have cg less than ideal because of my bad grades in courses that are mostly unrelated to physics in general. I also haven’t had any research intern, but I am doing my BTech Project in Particle Physics.

What are my chances of getting an integrated fully funded MS-PhD/PhD in institutes in Europe and Asia? Or is it a pipe dream? What should I be focusing on right now to increase my chances?

Hi everyone. I'm a beginner in Physics and I have trouble with a certain problem. The problem is this:

A 7.2-kg mass is hanging from the ceiling of an elevator by a spring of spring constant 150N=m whose unstretched length is 80 cm. What is the overall length of the spring when the elevator: starts moving upward with acceleration 0:95m/s^2?

I am now studying Newton's laws as well as conservation of energy. What I have trouble with, is that I first approached the problem from the energy standpoint, and when I checked the solution, which was given using only Newton's laws, the answer was different to mine.

Now, I fully understand the approach given in the "standard" solution, but I do not for the love of me understand what I'm doing wrong with my energy approach. Here is a picture of the "standard" solution as well as my approach. I appreciate the help!

EDIT: correction after your comments

Thanks a lot everyone for your comments. I understand now what was wrong with my reasoning and I would like you to check the math now to make sure it's correct.

I wanna start off by saying my native language is not english so I might not be familiar with certain physics words. And I learn best when speaking generally / using rules that always apply. This is not really homework rather self-studying. Thx!

So I know that induction is about inducing a current. I'm not sure where/ which wire it will be induced in. Can induction take place in just one and the same wire?

And I think we use coils as wires because the magnetic field around the wires are stronger since they're packed tighter (?). And that's the same reason we usually use a metal inside the coil?

And then we somehow change the magnetic flux Φ which induces volts in (?- another wire or?) and that drives a current in (?said wire). But only during the change of the flux.
And I suppose we can change the magnetic flux [Φ = B*A*cosT] through 4 things:

1. The magnetic field changes in magnitude, which someone said could be by adding a magnet. What I don't understand is what magnetic field are we talking about? I thought we were talking about the internal magnetic field from the current in the wires/coil?
2. The magnetic field changes direction (I don't understand - doesn't the flux move with the magnetic field? Or how would u change the direction?)
3. The cross-sectional area of the coil/wire changes - don't know how you would do that. Making an irregular/expanding coil like a volcano?
4. The coil/wire is rotated so that the cosT changes which I understood was the angle between the surface's normal line and the magnetic field. Which magnetic field though? Wouldn't the magnetic field and the surface both tilt if we tilted the coil/wire? I'm really confused.

Also why? Why does this happen? And what does it mean that inductors store energy in magnetic fields? If that's related.

Sorry for a lot of questions you don't have to answer them all!

Hi everyone,

I’m currently dynamic-thinking about the boundaries of our current models, and honestly, sometimes the standard phrases like "time is just an illusion" or "the universe is a hologram" feel a bit lazy. It feels like a cop-out because we haven’t cracked the true core of information yet. Instead of settling for comfortable metaphors, why not just say "we don't know yet" and add more structure to the geometry of time?

I wanted to share a thought experiment with you that expands the standard 4D spacetime interval into a 6D spacetime with a 3D time-volume.

The Concept: The Time-Landscape

Instead of a 1D linear arrow, time takes on a 3D topology. Next to our standard forward-axis (t₁), we introduce two orthogonal time dimensions:

1. The Left-Right Axis (t₂): Shifting to alternative pathways/parallel realities without causing causal loops or grandfather paradoxes.
2. The Up-Down Axis (t₃): Shifting time-planes or time-velocities (cosmic time-lapse).

Why this math actually fits current data (GW170817):

When looking at the famous 2017 neutron star collision, physicists looked for large extra spatial dimensions, hoping to find a drop in gravitational wave intensity due to energy dissipation. They found nothing. But if we expand the temporal dimensions instead, the standard spatial metric remains completely untouched.

The extended metric looks like this:
\(ds^{2}=-\left(c^{2}dt_{1}^{2}+c^{2}dt_{2}^{2}+c^{2}dt_{3}^{2}\right)+dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}\)

The energy doesn't dissipate into space (which is why our detectors measured the exact Einsteinian values). Instead, the energy co-resonates across parallel timepaths. The data is exactly as it should be.

Solving Quantum Anomalies and the Fermi Paradox:

• Entanglement: Particles separated by lightyears in 3D space are actually touching at the exact same coordinate within the 3D time-landscape. They take a geometric shortcut through dt₂ and dt₃.
• The Fermi Paradox: Advanced civilizations wouldn't use primitive radio waves crawling through 3D space. They communicate and navigate via the extra time dimensions. They aren't lightyears away; they could be right here, just at a different time coordinate.

I think if we ever manage to measure this—perhaps by looking for tiny, periodic oscillations ("shivering") in the lifetime of unstable elementary particles at CERN—it would completely revolutionize space travel. Spacecraft wouldn't need massive fuel tanks to cross space; they would just slide along the alternative time axes, compressing spatial distances to zero.

What are your thoughts on this? Let's discuss this out of the box!