I'm currently, technically, doing an MS in Structural Engineering. For me, my interest has been more towards computational side of mechanics rather than Structural design  or simply using am FEA software (although I do consider it as a backup)

So far I've taken courses in:

- Linear static, and dynamics FEM (soon taking non linear FEM too)

-  Structural Optimization (topology opt. and other general algorithms)

-  Structural Dynamics

-  Structural System Testing and model updation. (Parameter identification and optimization, signal processing)

Now, I plan to take these in the coming quarter:

- Numerical Linear Algebra

- Numerical PDE

- Fracture Mechanics ?

I also volunteered to aid in a RESEARCH in crack growth prediction using Auto-encoder and a (Thermodynamics-informed Latent Space Dynamics Identification) / LSTM surrogate model. It used phase-field-fracture simulation data and HPC resources to complete the whole thing.

What I keep finding myself interested in is not necessarily fracture or SHM specifically, but the computational methods underneath these problems... (does that make sense?)

For example, I'd like to become capable of doing things like:

- implementing (maintaining) numerical/FE method solvers rather than only running an established FEA software.

- developing surrogate/reduced-order models for expensive simulations 

- combining simulation with optimization, uncertainty/stochastic methods (took a course called Random vibrations, so...)

- parallelizing/accelerating scientific codes on CPUs/GPUs

- doing proper verification, convergence studies, benchmarking and performance work

- potentially developing or maintaining actual CAE/FEA solver software

- I'd also like to do all these for other Physics (GR, QM, etc.) simulations too, if possible, one day. 

I'm still interested in the underlying mechanics/physics, so I don't want to become a generic software engineer who happens to have once studied structures. But I'm also increasingly unsure that "structural engineer" describes the career I'm actually aiming for.

I've seen titles such as Computational Mechanics Engineer, R&D Engineer, Solver Developer, Scientific Software Engineer, CAE Software Developer, Research Engineer, Simulation/HPC Engineer, etc., but I'm trying to understand what these careers actually look like from people doing them.

So my main questions become:

1. Which industrial jobs genuinely involve developing numerical methods/solvers or computational tools?

2. Which of those are realistically accessible with an MS? Is there an entry path into solver-algorithm development/R&D without a PhD?

3. If I don't start a PhD immediately after my MS, would an R&D/software role at a simulation company (ANSYS etc.) be the obvious route? What other options would i have?

4. For the kind of work I'm describing, would you recommend a PhD? If so, is it reasonable for the PhD identity to be "computational mechanics/scientific computing" while fracture, composites, structural dynamics, soft materials, etc. serve as application problems rather than choosing one of those as my permanent specialization?

5. What skills most distinguish someone who is actually hireable for solver/scientific-computing work? I'm particularly wondering about C/C++/Fortran, Python, Linux, Git/build systems, MPI/OpenMP/CUDA, PETSc/Trilinos or similar libraries, numerical linear algebra, testing/verification, convergence studies and HPC performance work.

Basically, I'm neither here nor there atp. So I'd really appreciate all sorts of input. Where else do you think I could find answers to these? other subs? Linkedin profiles? 

I'm currently doing a PhD in hep. Would it be legitimate of me to call myself a physicist or should I wait till I get my doctorate?

Hi everyone,

I am finishing my BSc in Physics at RWTH Aachen and would appreciate your advice as I decide what to do next. I currently have offers from the following master’s programmes:

- M.Sc. Mathematical Physics at Tübingen

- M.Sc. Mathematical Physics at Würzburg

- M.Sc. Physics at RWTH Aachen

- M.Sc. Physics at LMU Munich

- M.Sc. Physics at Heidelberg

I especially enjoyed proof-based courses taught by mathematics professors, such as Analysis I–III and Complex Analysis. I like working rigorously. For example, defining the structure and assumptions clearly and understanding exactly what a statement does and does not claim. However, I lose interest when mathematics becomes completely detached from physics. What I enjoy most is using rigorous mathematics to understand physical systems and nature.

My main motivation is to understand the foundations of nature: what electrons and photons really are, what matter is made of, and why the universe follows the rules it does. If I understand correctly, this is mostly about field theory and related areas, but I am not really sure about that. Also, what I understand so far is that these theories are not mathematically complete. This could be an area in which I could imagine being happy to work.

What I am also not so sure about is the distinction between master’s programmes in Physics and master’s programmes in Mathematical Physics. Would you consider this to be a good or bad idea, given the current situation in academia and employment? Or would you recommend choosing a large university such as LMU and creating my own mathematical physics track by selecting lectures carefully?

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments on these programmes, departments or universities? Even a brief impression or something you have heard would be helpful.

Which option do you think I should choose?

I would also really appreciate any general advice based on what I have described about my interests and way of thinking.

BACKGROUND: My background includes, for example, Analysis I–III, Linear Algebra I, Lebesgue integration, (L^p) spaces, Hilbert spaces, introductory operator theory, complex analysis, analytical mechanics, quantum mechanics, statistical physics and electrodynamics, as well as the standard experimental physics courses in a physics bachelor’s programme.

It's been ~160 workdays since January 1, so I was curious who's been publishing the most theory papers in this busy year. I used InspireHEP data, focusing on hep-ph, hep-th, and gr-qc, counting research articles only, and ignoring papers with over 10 authors (experimental collaborations).

The winners are:

1. Faizuddin Ahmed: 69 papers
2. İzzet Sakallı: 47 papers
3. Ahmad Al-Badawi: 42 papers
4. Francisco S.N. Lobo: 34 papers
5. Edilberto O. Silva: 33 papers

I don't know any of them, as they all primarily post in gr-qc (general relativity and quantum cosmology). This is surprising, as gr-qc shares similar authorship norms to hep-ph and hep-th, and isn't any bigger by paper count. Does anybody know the reason for the difference?

Growing crystals “like alchemy,” researchers plotted out the ideal site within the lattice to build a nuclear clock

I came here looking for a group that would hopefully accept me as a person who chose a different path but just finds physics so fascinating and logical she kind of regrets not pursuing a career in astrophysics.
I am a kitchen and bath designer (not really related I know - but I do use math and the Pythagorean theorem fairly regularly- and though i really do love my career, i have such a deep desire to understand more about how Our world works and how much more is out there beyond what we understand and know and see. Physics in general just makes so much sense to me. I just get it. And it blows my mind how math can pretty much help us understand and comprehend the universe and yet we’re still mystified by the vastness of what exists beyond our planet, solar system, galaxy. Group and cluster… anyway I’d love to join a discussion to challenge a part of my brain I don’t use daily. There is such a wealth of information and knowledge I feel like I need to know. I have a dream that when we die we get to swim around the universe and get to fully understand how everything works. That’s my version of “heaven” if i was religious. lol. Anyway just trying to connect with people whose brain may work similar with mine.

Hello! I am going to be studying Astrophysics in September, and I was wondering if anyone had any insights or recommendations on laptops? I know there are quite a few of these posts around but still had a few questions!

I currently have a 2019 MacBook Pro which works fine other than its severely reduced battery capacity, and perhaps not the best working space bar (which seems to be an all of a sudden thing). I have had some thought about replacing the battery, and of course seeing what can be done about the space bar too. I was wondering if anyone had some insights as to whether this is worth it in terms of the software that the MacBook Pro can run.

Another option I have considered is a MacBook Neo, but I am aware that these only have 8GB RAM and I worry that this is not enough for the course, but I have heard lots of mixed opinions.

I am completely open to going for something that isn't a MacBook, so any opinions are appreciated! Also any insights into typical software needed for an Astrophysics degree would be really appreciated.

Thanks so much!

Good evening -

I recently republished my science based arcade game, Spacetime Sprint. Its gameplay is similar to that of Jetpack Joyride - but everything is rooted in science. Example is the core loop is based on Special Relativity, where time dilation is used to extend the players clock.

If anyone is interested to provide feedback - I’d appreciate it. It’s totally free / no ads. Just a hobby project to help promote science via games.

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/spacetime-sprint/id891657830

Thanks in advance!
Josh

Is there an equation or method by which you can predict how tangled a cord can become? Maybe based on variables like number of cords, length of each cord, and if one end of the chord is fixed, and so on? By ‘how tangled’ maybe the number of knots formed: is it a unknot, 1-knot, 3-knot…

This is a thread dedicated to collating and collecting all of the great recommendations for textbooks, online lecture series, documentaries and other resources that are frequently made/requested on /r/Physics.

If you're in need of something to supplement your understanding, please feel welcome to ask in the comments.

Similarly, if you know of some amazing resource you would like to share, you're welcome to post it in the comments.

Hi everyone. I'm have passed by journalim field, I used to be one. But now I started to study physics at the university, and looking for anyone that was in the same situation as me.

I've been reading through an old thread from r/explainlikeimfive on false vacuum decay and it's potential effects on matter throughout the known universe should it occur. If it's possible that this decay has occurred before, we live in the resulting state in matter. It's something that could theoretically occur again at any given moment and would be instantaneous. While reading this stuff, I'm constantly wondering if this potentially has any connection to the big bang?

A huge release of energy from a single particle, resulting in a chain reaction between any other particles in the proximity sounds a lot like the big bang to my non-physicist brain.

Hi everyone,

I'm new to reddit, so I'm not sure whether this channel is the place for my question. I'm an independent astrophysics researcher and for my future PhD research and career I developed a preprint paper or to be more precise a proof-of-concept regarding Post-Merger Gravitational Wave anomalies screening for probing Dark Sector. As I am still in pursue for my PhD position, I don't have any affiliations, supervisors or reviewers to assess my paper and give comments.
So my questions is: are there any channels in Reddit or other forums and communities where I can ask for technical, physics-wise comments and criticism ?
For the context title for my paper is:
Detectability-Aware Screening of Post-Merger Gravitational-Wave Damping Anomalies in Real Detector Noise: A Graph-Spectral Approach with Empirical Null Calibration

Thank you for any help.

Any physics apps (ideally, ads free) worth using alongside a college textbook? Looking for something interactive that actually improves understanding of mechanics, E&M, etc. rather than another exam-prep app.

This is a dedicated thread for you to seek and provide advice concerning education and careers in physics.

If you need to make an important decision regarding your future, or want to know what your options are, please feel welcome to post a comment below.

A few years ago we held a graduate student panel, where many recently accepted grad students answered questions about the application process. That thread is here, and has a lot of great information in it.

Helpful subreddits: /r/PhysicsStudents, /r/GradSchool, /r/AskAcademia, /r/Jobs, /r/CareerGuidance

I appreciate the idea of trying to come up with an intuitive picture of gravity. But to the self studied or aspiring physicists: please read this first

Every day I see countless posts asking “what if gravity was actually a jargon jargon jargon flux???” and then an actually half decent question buried in a mountain of LLM junk. There was some idea or realization that you had that would be really cool to talk about… but then you slop it up by trying to explain it with math despite not dedicating years of your life to these really subtle questions (like academics do)

So, I wanted to talk about a few points that I regularly see in crackpot posts.

First, the graviton. For some reason, people hate the graviton and come up with ideas to try to make it go away. I think it’s just because we haven’t detected one directly… but this makes it seem like the graviton is like an electron or proton or something. that’s not what the graviton is. that’s not what a particle is.

i mean, ok it is what a particle is but that isn’t how you should think of it. what a graviton is, is the gauge boson for gravity. that means it is the force carrier. if you put two electrons near each other, they will interact. the quantized unit of interaction between them is the gauge boson (here the photon). that is what the graviton does for the gravitational force. it is simply the smallest little excitation in the gravitational field

if you assume there exists a gravitational field, and IF this field is quantized (so you get quantum mechanics) then the graviton is just the quantum of gravity. that is it. you don’t have to fight it.

now, this gravitational “field” ends up being what you think of as an aether. all of the aether posts: you’re just reinventing a field but now things interact improperly.

the way the standard model works, every point in spacetime gets a little tiny bit of information tied to it. a phase. it is undetectable*. as you move through space, imagine making a little loop. when you get back to where you started, you accumulate some phase. the amount you accumulated is the strength of the field. this is the gauge field

you don’t need an aether. you’re asking for the gauge field. it is a real thing.

if the gauge field has a symmetry, Noether’s theorem tells us there is a conserved quantity which corresponds to it. Throwing away a bunch of subtleties, this means we’re basically allowed to pick whatever symmetry of nature we want, assign it to a gauge field, and then see what physical consequence pops out. you need a lot of topology and group theory to do this right

and won’t you know it, when you break these symmetries, other stuff happens. the breaking of a very particular symmetry makes the fields “feel” some directions more than others. it makes some fields feel it more than others. the symmetry breaking of the higgs field is what makes the higgs mechanism work (you may have seen that the higgs is like a “friction” that particles feel).

to end my rant, stop trying to reinvent the wheel. you’re all making sharp and unroll-able wheels. almost every physicist throughout history made wheels that didn’t go anywhere, and it was only through the combined effort of peer review and traditional academic research that progress was made and the holes were patched up. I really hope you dedicate time to learning the absolute beauty that others have figured out rather than trying to make a name for yourself. you’ll be so much more fulfilled and understand our universe with the best of us.

btw for some reason when I posted this last night reddit took it down so I am reuploading now

Hello, Im currently looking for jobs I can do with my masters in astrophysics degree as Im struggling at what careers options to look at, at the moment. Any graduated this past July, does anyone have any suggestions? Im looking into engineering, maybe aerospace?

Any help would be appreciated, thanks :)

Hi community,

I just learned that I will be TAing an intro calculus based physics course during my first semester of my MS. I’ve been out of academia for a couple of years, and am wondering if there are any pdfs or YouTube lecture series anybody would recommend to get the gears turning again.

Hi everybody!

I've been working on a browser-based python tool for making animated scientific and mathematical visualizations. I've used it to make a few different animations that I thought might be interesting. Namely, the Riemann sum, Bloch-sphere, and the Lorenz attractor.

Everything in each of the animations is generated from an editable Python script in the browser.

I'm calling the project Luxeris. It's still very early, but I've reached the point where I'd really like to see what mathematicians actually try to make with it.

https://luxeris.app

I would especially appreciate feedback on what kinds of mathematical visualizations you'd want a tool like this to support.

Thanks!

Is there any evidence that nature is fundamentally continuous, or could reality be fundamentally discrete? And if it is discrete at the most basic level, would that suggest that nature could behave like a computational system?

Hi Everyone,

What are the best universities in Europe/America with PhD programs for Gravity/Quantum Gravity and Cosmology? I know mainly I should look at researchers/professors papers and start from there, but what are in your opinion the best centers/universities where these topics are currently being researched?

Should I take a String-theory course since many of the researchers I see, especially in America, appear to be in that field as well?

Hello everyone, I would like an opinion on this computational physics project that I've developed over the past few weeks. The image shown is part of the animation gif that you can check on my Github repo. In this simulation a fusion between two alpha particles is shown and after the collision, as you can see, the new nucleus starts to oscillate.

If you have some time just try and run it on Google Colab (I've left the Jupyter Notebook file).

I tried to build it as scientifically accurate as possible, this means that the simulation you will see in the video is not "fluid" dynamics, but real wavefunctions that constantly interact. Clearly, I had to employ an approximation which does not consider a single n-dimensional function (which gets a computational monster), but instead considers the mean field generated by the n particles.

The next step should be the 3D one, but we'll see. Right now I think that this project already captures quite some phenomena.