Re:Is it time to change the undergraduate physics curriculum?
by T-A on Friday December 01, 2017 @01:13AM
(#15822278)
> Analytical work dominates in high-energy theory, quantum information, mathematical physics, cosmology theory.
Yes, but most physicists are not theorists.
Re:Is it time to change the undergraduate physics curriculum?
by pbhjpbhj on Friday December 01, 2017 @09:45AM
(#15824081)
All true physicists are theorists, the others are engineers. ;oP
Re:Is it time to change the undergraduate physics curriculum?
by jessriedel on Friday December 01, 2017 @09:19AM
(#15823929)
My comment doesn't assert or assume that.
Re:Is it time to change the undergraduate physics curriculum?
by cozzyd on Friday December 01, 2017 @01:15AM
(#15822283)
There are way more experimental physicists than theoretical physicists, and even theorists usually at least write Mathematica code...
Re:Is it time to change the undergraduate physics curriculum?
by jessriedel on Friday December 01, 2017 @09:29AM
(#15823985)
"Way more" is an exaggeration. I'd estimate it's a 2:1 ratio (of profs and postdocs, not techs). Second, I am not disputing that most theorists use code from time to time. Lord knows I do. The claim is that this is nothing like 80% of their job.
Analytical work dominates in high-energy theory, quantum information, mathematical physics, cosmology theory. I'll also dispute your characterization of quantum gravity with my own anecdotal experience. If we wanted to solve this, I think we'd just open up an issue of Physical Review and count whether more than half the papers are numerical.
Outside big collaborations (e.g., particles, astronomy), my impression is that most experimental work is not writing code even though rudimentary code is of course needed for data analysis and equipment control.
We're on a site for programers, so I think the former physicists who happen to be here are unrepresentative.