Should i study physics

Is it worth it spending 4 years studying physics in university? What are the major cons and pros?

It's easier to make bucks as an engineer.
If you're smart and driven, you won't regret it though.

Pro: It's very challenging, and highly respected
Con: It's very challenging, and respect isn't the same as a job

There's a lot of faggots on this board who like to shit on physics (I think recent polls showed 14% of the board study physics, and majority study engineering), but as a physics graduate I feel like my degree has put me in a really good position for work. The only cases I know of where physics graduates are unable to get jobs is where they're too autistic to succeed at interview.
It's easier to get work if your degree leads directly to a certain kind of career (Engineering -> Engineer, CS -> software developer/engineer, etc...), but there's nothing that stops you getting the same work if you try hard enough because physics is right in the middle of all these different STEM subjects.
If you're prepared to get a masters degree to specialise in something, or get a new skillset, this is where your physics background will really shine to employers (e.g. physics undergrad and stats/data science/ML postgrad is a fantastic combination). You shouldn't find many subjects to be a challenge at masters level, either.
Basically, if you're interested in studying physics, you should study physics. As long as you're studying a STEM subject, it honestly doesn't really matter what you study; your degree is gonna have a lot of value.

Every non-meme STEM degree is worth studying 4 years. Heck, even 8 years. Who the fuck cares.

Pros:
>A better understanding of the universe than engineers and everyone below them

Cons:
>A worse understanding of the universe than mathematicians

>A worse understanding of mathematics than mathematicians

ftfy

>A worse understanding of the universe than mathematicians
This triggers the autist in me, user.

Isn't mathematics technically the universe?

I mean, either mathematics is a fundamental property of our universe and is guided directly by the relations we discover, or mathematics is a human inventon unique in the fact that only it can make predictions about the universe.

Either way, I am right.

Good. I hear autism is an advantage in physics.

>Either way, I am right.
>I make unprovable statements, therefore I'm right

Put your arrogance on the backburner there son, there's a lot of conjecture in that statement. Both physicists and mathematicians are entangled in a debate over why mathematics is so "unnaturally effective" but stating things like "the whole universe corresponds to mathematics" is just flat on its face. Need proof? Gödel's incompleteness theorems, banach-tarski paradoxes, axiom of choice and that's not all

One day you might be right, just maybe, but for now math is simply useful in "predicting" physical phenomena. That doesn't mean that those predictions are 100% true or that the universe is math. It means that math is an extremely effective tool but for now not more than that.

>Good. I hear autism is an advantage in physics.
Y-you too...

>Put your arrogance on the backburner there son, there's a lot of conjecture in that statement. Both physicists and mathematicians are entangled in a debate over why mathematics is so "unnaturally effective" but stating things like "the whole universe corresponds to mathematics" is just flat on its face. Need proof? Gödel's incompleteness theorems, banach-tarski paradoxes, axiom of choice and that's not all

What a bunch of memes.

If you knew logic you would know that I am actually right, because my statements are of the form P or NOT P. Which is always true but if P is false then NOT P is true.

P= Mathematics is a fundamental property of the universe
NOT P = Mathematics is NOT a fundamental property of the universe

But I add to NOT P that even if it isn't a fundamental property of the universe, mathematics still is the only language able to make predictions about it.

Are you gonna deny that? This has nothing to do with mathematical paradoxes or the incompleteness theorems. It is a simple fact of reality.

I am not an advantage in physics.

>gets proven wrong
>i-it's a bunch of memes

No, math is not a fundamental property of the universe. Math is a human construct built upon logical axioms. Math is used to describe the fundamental properties of the universe, and it is very effective in doing that. However, math is not those properties. You're confusing the language with the message.

If what you were saying was true then physics wouldn't even exist and math would be confined to proportions of the universe. Things like graham's number and banach-tarski paradoxes wouldn't exist either, but they do because math is a venture in logic, not a full description of the universe's properties.

>Isn't mathematics technically the universe?
You know when people without a STEM background are like; "it's pointless to learn calculus because I'm never going to use it", and you know that they're right, but it still annoys you a little?
That's kinda how physics is with some branches of maths. Because it turns out physics ISN'T going to use it. Because the universe doesn't use it.
>A worse understanding of the universe than mathematicians
Except for when it comes to - you know - the actual universe.

No it's not. Just because I can come up with an equation on a whim that doesn't mean it can be actually constructed. In other words I can give you a mathematical construct which has no mapping to a working physical one.
At least not according to our current understanding of physics. Will it be true some day in the future? I don't know, because we currently can't predict that about the future. All we know is that currently it's false.
SO STOP TROLLING.

I rate your bait 2/10.

Now you're just arguing [s]semantics[/s] autistics.

>No, math is not a fundamental property of the universe. Math is a human construct built upon logical axioms. Math is used to describe the fundamental properties of the universe, and it is very effective in doing that. However, math is not those properties. You're confusing the language with the message.

That is not what I am saying.

I am not saying mathematics is a fundamental property of the universe. I am saying that either mathematics is a fundamental property of the universe or it is not. And that EITHER WAY I am right because if mathematics is a fundamental property then my correctness is trivial.

IF mathematics is NOT a fundamental property then I am still right because even like that, it is able to describe the universe to probably infinite precision, by which I mean that we can always improve our predictions.

>No it's not. Just because I can come up with an equation on a whim that doesn't mean it can be actually constructed. In other words I can give you a mathematical construct which has no mapping to a working physical one.
>At least not according to our current understanding of physics. Will it be true some day in the future? I don't know, because we currently can't predict that about the future. All we know is that currently it's false.
>SO STOP TROLLING.

You are also not getting the message.

I am not saying that all of mathematics predicts the universe, I am saying that mathematics in general can be used to predict the universe.

Some things are useful, some things are not. I am obviously not talking about mochizuki theory or Sieve theory or shit like that. I am talking about the formal language used in calculus, used in differential equations. THAT predicts the universe if you can show that your equations are modelling something and doing that is usually very trivial. You find that properties of a system and then model them in some way or another.

>I rate your bait 2/10.

I read your reading comprehension reading/comprehension

Sci answer: Well, at undergrad level physics is really brainlet tier if you're smart. Anyone smart can learn it. Why not EE?

Real answer: if you know what you're doing then it doesn't matter what you study (within reason). For example engineering and physics has a large overlap, unless we talk about far fetched stuff like working on some theory about stars, highly theoretical physics stuff, etc. See the 2014 Nobel winners.

If you want to study physics, because you don't know what to study then educate yourself. Otherwise see and do it.

PROTIP 1: for physics MSc is usually the minimum, but PhD is recommended. On the other hand I personally recommend MSc for eng. (and similar) too. BSc is basically weeding out the tards and allowing some talented people to start flourishing at best. No advanced concepts anywhere, unless you teach shit to yourself.

PROTIP 2: Learn how to learn auto-didactically. If you want to be competent you will be learning for the next 30-50 years. Even if it's not the same as learning at uni.

PROTIP 3: Read the fucking textbooks, at least the interesting ones. Learn to teach yourself from books. Also, don't treat different subjects like they're totally different things.Try to find a way to connect them.

Find how they work together. This applies to both physics and eng..
Even if you want to be for example an EE later, and your class only covers some transistor models, read the physics theory properly.
Same for physics, connect what you have learned to reality and learn how different theories interact. In a real job that's what matters.
Irl you will need to figure out how to do something no one has done before, you won't be doing already verified stuff inside a lab like in BSc. This applies to all research (and respectable state of the art design positions) in both physics and engineering.

Sorry for the typos and the shittily formatted answer, but I don't feel like thinking too much now.

OK. Reread your shit. Fine, but the >Isn't mathematics technically the universe?
is bait (in itself at least), because it implies what I said. I get your point now though.
However, it's rather about the techniques of mathematics, rather than mathematics as a whole. Simply saying math is XYZ is probably not the best way to put this. Idk how to put it properly in a concrete manner, I'm tired to try and figure it out now, but your point is more about the methods of mathematics, because when you do math you can use non real constructs to represent perfectly valid mathematical constructs when we talk about the same method/theory. Yet physics only cares about the physical ones.
You're basically talking about math as a concept, a method and not about specific models. Simply saying math probably implies both for most people.

Sure, math can be used to measure the universe to a broad precision, I won't contest that. However, your original statement was that a mathematician understands the universe better than a physicist, which is bullshit. A mathematician understands math better than a physicist. That means they understand the tools used in those measurements better, but that is not the same as understanding what is to be measured better. Mathematicians specialize in logical systems, not in physical systems. If the latter were true then math and physics would be combined into one field. If math were forced under the constraints of physics, most of it would break down. Can you deny that? For your sake hopefully not, and that is case in point why mathematicians are not "better physicists" as you're hoping to imply.

>Is it worth it spending 4 years studying physics in university?
Only if you spend an extra few years to top up with a PhD. That is when you get the interesting jobs.

Go for solid state physics, many opportunities in interesting research and also good chances of work in the commercial sector.

I did that. Can recommend.

Yeah, maybe I took some artistic liberties with my original phrase. It still stands. Mathematics IS technically the universe because it doesn't matter what part of the universe you are exploring, to get a concrete argument for what you want to show, you will always need to explain the technical bits in mathematics.

Experiments in physics are usually done just to find some new mathematical equation and the usual laws, proven in mathematics, always apply.

If you have a formula for volume that looks like V=f(x,y,z) and another formula for volume that looks like V=g(y,z,c) then you can use them interchaneably and by transitivity set that f(x,y,z)=g(y,z,c) to solve some problems, specially when g(x) involves different variables than f(x).

No one looked through a telescope to find "TRANSITIVITY IS VALID" written on the moon. It is just a law proven in mathematics that makes way too much sense.

Literally DUDE WEED LMAO: the science discipline

>Isn't mathematics technically the universe?
Only to the extent that the piece of paper that the menu is printed on is the actual meal itself.

Eating much paper recently?

>that a mathematician understands the universe better than a physicist

I get where you are coming from with that entire post but I would say Cedric Villain Knee knows more about the universe than any "pure" physicist.

No.
You're not smart enough.
Do EE or CS instead.
Be realistic.

I don't know much about Cedric Villani other than his work on partial differentials. I will say one thing, the mastery of such fields (which do lend themselves very well to physics) could very well imbue people like him with the intuition and foresight needed to deeply understand the universe.

This also explains why people who made groundbreaking contributions in physics had a great fervor for math (ie Einstein, Gauss, Newton)

Nevertheless, the two fields should remain distinct and seperate. Math needs its boundless freedom to remain beautiful and Physics needs its correlation to reality to remain beautiful.

but op, you won't find anything new with an undergrad

you'll have shown: a)you know how to SURVIVE better than doormatmagicians
b)that you were ALWAYS BETTER THAN SAID DOORMATS
but really, if u want physics, go all out: do a physics and chemistry double major for undergrad then probably a physics phd

>implying physics undergrad is more difficult than EE
Good one bud

Found the engineer

Mathfags shitting up the science threads, as usual.

Found another engineer

Could a mathfag please explain why the sky is blue using math

>implying even comprehension of everything isn't ideal for understanding reality

Who else is a pre-med master race?

Excelling at the MCAT requires
>mol bio major worth of knowledge
>systems bio minor "
>chem minor "
>phys minor "
>psychology major "

Getting into a med school will prob also require a major in another field too and a minors worth of knowledge in stats

>being a blind specialization fag
>not embracing the liberal arts

Reporting in

To top it all off we actually get to save lives and help people instead of working on pointless conjectures that only 5 other autistics will read

I mean, I'm a computer engineering, I really never had to mind if I'll get a job or not, I get offers every fucking week, I'm currently working part-time while doing my MSc, and I'm aiming for a PhD.

But working at a company is boring as fuck, no matter what you do, the only decent jobs are at Silicon Valley in those big meme companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. The rest is pure shit no matter how well they pay.

So to your questions, yes it's worth it, doing physics is fun and interesting and also you get to work doing research instead of being in a fucking office with assholes doing irrelevant crap.

I honestly couldn't think of something more boring than medicine. You're essentially doing nothing to advance society, you're just like a technician working on a car, except you do it in the human body. You can't prevent dead, most illness are incurable and the operations are still so primitive that they depend on the fucking pulse of the doctor doing it.

Scientists are the one who advance society, everyone else is just making money, while science will eventually solve every problem of the human race.

>being in a fucking office with assholes doing irrelevant crap

Gonna be 90% of your life in most STEM jobs anyway.

is right with the pros and cons.

If you have a deep passion for Physics do it. You're gonna be dead in a few years anyway. Might aswell do and learn about something you really like.

How many people can really say they have a deep passion for physics right out of high school?

But it is true that you shouldn't do physics if you don't really care for it, i.e. if for whatever reason you thought physics would get you respect or whatever. There's much better degrees for that.

Dual majored in EE and physics. I can believe grad school and higher physics is more difficult, but undergrad is not.

Please don't lie here.
It doesn't impress anyone.

You caught me. Undergrad physics is actually the TOUGHEST subject ever created and cannot be matched by anything.

You can study grammar structure and memorise every word of a foreign language.

But that does not mean you will understand the things you say.

>solid state physics,
Thanks man

Well if you did most of your modules in physics, you might eventually have had to learn general relativity or quantum field theory, which would floor you harder than any EE subject.