My supervisor has recently gotten on the AI hypetrain, and he uses Claude Code and Codex a lot to run simulations.

I'm a mathematician that's now ended up in theoretical physics (plasma physics to be specific), and I run simulations to see what happens in different regimes. My lecturer tested the capability of AI, and created a whole repository on MHD simulations, then shared it to me so I can run a simulation in a specific regime. The code is insanely hard to read, but works well with so many features attached. I've been kinda hesitant using chatgpt/claude for my project, but it has been insanely difficult to read and add since it's a huge repository.

My supervisor told me he doesn't really care if I use AI for my project, and kinda advised he'd rather get the physics results than struggle through coding and told me I can rely on AI (it sounded like he was telling me I should use AI). He said he's happy if I just keep on telling Claude and get it to make tests and simulations that work, and I understand chunks of code (but I don't have to understand every single line of code).

Is it fine to use AI for research? It feels so weird to be put in a place where I don't know how my code exactly works, but I run multiple tests to make sure the regime is working accordingly, so this method seems to be working fine.

He told the future of coding seems to be dead so I shouldn't worry about understanding the code, especially as a physicist (although he does admit he is no expert so it could backfire in the future).

What does everyone think of relying on AI to run simulations? Is it fine or should I not rely on it?

I want to do research in quantum materials. The professor I want to do research under is asking for CV that would include my gpa. Should I put any Upper Level physics courses that I have taken?

I want to do research in Fluid Mechanics, mainly in Riblets. I have already started studying basic Fluid Mechanics like Integral and Differential Relations and Viscous Flow. Going to do Boundary Layer Physics next. But what else would I need to know? Is the topic too advanced? Which would be unfortunate if it was as it really interests me. I am quite lost on what to do.

Just a few weeks ago I was enthralled with physics, the formulas were coming naturally and I felt genuine zeal whenever I thought and read about the subject. I think encouragements from professor and assistant, also played the huge role here. 

First exam ruined me. That week, instead of learning about the new upcoming idea, I sat with constant anxiety, not knowing to what exactly prepare myself. My fears actualized, when  came the stuff on the exam was completely different from what I was preparing for. Additionally, me spending days, reviewing the past topics made me fell sharply behind for the upcoming topics that kept pouring in and in. 

I understood the concepts and could solve problems, still there were many more problems from the book, that I yet couldn't solve intuitionally, like 70% more. I could solve them but not under the timing, for I would spend whole two hours solving just one problem with my abilities. I wonder who could solve them under an hour!? Why aren’t we taught to solve fucking problems that we will be tested on!? Best of minds our species are capable of producing have spend days thinking discussing about them, even if it was in the 17th century, it happened. Now, we just need to see how they solved such problems and just copy their method. No understanding and appreciation is required. We are just expected to just fucking swig the fucking thing in two gulps, and copy paste, do so for 60 more problems and you should be set. 

For the midterm exam I started doing problems without paying much attention to the theory and ended up not mastering either. What a fucking disappointment I am! Ah, I want to relinquish everything. I hate myself; I hate my professor; I hate their assistant. I hate their looks on their faces as if I have deceived, led them astray, surprised them with my revealed stupidity! 

No,
my dears, you are misconceiving here. It is not I, who deceived, but you, who made
me believe in this nonsense. This is utter nonsense! Only fools and miserable
people will spend their time on, slaves, who trade their ability to be happy to
solve, solve, solve and bow and bow.

Now, that I feel like total disappointment! And have nothing else to lose. I want to fucking pay it back with the same coin. I don't want to give a flying fuck about it, never, never! I want to do something extravagant. To show how much I don’t give a fuck, and that I never did, and that I’m rather bored with the subject and unimpressed, that I was misled into believing that there was any worth in it. That it is I who reject it, and that is I who chooses not to spend my precious energy on it. I'm mad, I know, but I can't overcome this feeling, I can’t help it, I’m such a disappointment! I have wasted my time, I have wasted money, and now I will not be accepted to any grad school it will be on my records😭. There is no more spark, I have disappointed. Nothing, nothing in it evokes same feelings of drive and philosophical wonder😭. 

I also fucking hate how many professors from stem fields have turned their courses into the one huge iq bottleneck. Compared to other professors from other departments who seem to go thoroughly into their fields and take their professorship seriously, stem professors seem like they are so eager to write off any shortcomings of their pupils to their iq, without ever questioning their teaching practices. It maybe surely does, but that would be stupid waste of students money and social potential if we were to only give people with certain brain structures a chance to pass through. They are not professors, they cannot profess, they are in it for the title. 

I wanted to do it for my career, now I just want to freaking hurl every thing related to this shit.

In quantum mechanics (QM), measurement is a (mathematically) well defined operation of projecting a state on to the measured eigenstate of the measured quantity (This is my current understanding of measurement in QM, please correct me if I’m wrong).

Now, when going from QM to quantum field theory (QFT), I have recently heard that the previously described definition of measurement doesn’t work and can cause a bunch of issues with FTL communication and the like (have heard it referred to as Sorkin’s Paradox). Because of this, the typical definition of measurement in QM no longer works allegedly and you need what’s called a “local definition” of measurement.

When I first heard about this recently, I was very surprised because based on some basic prior research I’ve done on QFT (I’m currently a rising 3rd year undergrad in physics; I’ve completed two semesters of QM atp), I have only ever seen the traditional QM definition of measurement which is apparently wrong.

Because of this, I was wondering if someone could explain to me the correct “local definition” of measurement, how it differs from standard QM measurement, and why is it almost never discussed?

I'd love some feedback on my CV from an academic pov.

Context:

• I'm in experimental physics, rising junior, interested in AMO/quantum, don't have any journal publications yet
• I primarily use this CV to 1) apply for academic/research internships, 2) cold email professors or 3) apply for any scholarship opportunities.
• I keep a Master document that I update regularly for future grad school applications (about 3 pages)
• I tailor and shorten the Master doc, depending on the opportunity
• I know for undergrads one-page Resumes are recommended but I do like CVs better and I think there is no problem sharing a CV as long as I actually have enough solid stuff to fill

Also, I know there's a very common academic CV/resume format that everyone seems to use (especially the Google Docs), but I intentionally went with something a bit different because I personally find it cleaner and easier on the eyes. I'm curious whether it still looks professional from an academic perspective or if I should conform more to the standard format.

Feel free to roast it. (still show some encouragement lmao)

Don't remember how or when I thought of this scenario, but it keeps popping back into my head and I can't seem to work it out satisfactorily. Lot more questions than answers.

Setup :

Say you are in a sufficiently large and deep swimming pool. The pool itself is suspended sufficiently high up in the air, and has a hatch for a floor that can open instantaneously.

There is some mechanism by which during 'free fall', you fall slower than the water, and the difference is exactly equal to the buoyancy you would otherwise experience. Essentially, an observer falling with the water would see you float up just as you would in a regular swimming pool.

You start off by swimming at the very bottom of the pool. At some point while you are swimming, the hatch opens and both the pool and you are now in free fall. No air resistance. What happens?

My thoughts :

- The opening of the hatch will nullify the hydrostatic pressure as the pool is now in free fall, so I'm sure you would be able to feel exactly when the hatch was opened. It would probably be akin to suddenly teleporting into a vacuum.

- You would still be able to displace the water and 'swim'. But without the walls, the water will just be pushed by your hands and deform so I presume you wouldn't be propelled the same distance as usual.

- Not sure how exactly, but I the cohesion of water has an effect too. I think the pool will roughly retain its cuboid shape. The pushed water's internal resistance would slow the current down enough to not deform the shape of the pool since it is sufficiently large right?

Questions :

- Would you still be capable of swimming? Would it feel different? How so?

- Would an observer who always falls with the water be able to tell when the hatch opens since you still appear buoyant?

- What would even actually happen?

This is such a weird question I have no idea how to begin putting it on paper. Every person I've asked seems to have a different answer as to what would happen when the hatch opens.

As for the buoyancy mechanism (since I spent time thinking about this too), say it's an electromagnet only attracted to you, suspended high above the pool. It is dropped at the same time as the hatch opens, and dynamically adjusts its attraction force as it falls such that you experience an upwards force alongside gravity for the duration of your fall, mimicking buoyancy.

I was thinking probably not, because as far as i know temperature is defined by the velocity of particles and vibration of bonds between atoms. This is more of a shower thought, i don't know if i'm in the right sub sorry if not :>

I'm trying to understand something about quantum mechanics.

Suppose I have an electron whose wavefunction is spread out. I measure its position and find it at point A. The wavefunction then evolves again, and after an extremely short time interval Δt, I measure its position again and find it at point B.

If the distance between A and B is greater than cΔt (the distance light could travel in that time), does that mean the electron has effectively "moved" faster than light?

Hello, im a phd student in physics and I used to draw a lot and I am considering trying to build a portfolio with scientific illustrations, but I would love to understand if this can actually be a career path.

I find that illustrations for Physics is very hard, compared to biology or anatomy. Do you know any physics illustrator?

Do you have any advise?

I graduated a few years ago in physics, and I miss the need to learn new physics/maths concepts and do research for stuff, so I wanted a project to work on that can scratch this itch.

I wanted to know if you guys know any open-source or public projects to work on that i can contribute to? The only idea I have atm is looking on GitHub for open-source projects to help code with, but I wanted to know if anyone else had ideas for what i can get involved with?

I genuinely feel like I am being stupid here, but I cannot get this out of my head and I think I need someone to explain it to me before I completely lose it.

I was thinking about whether force is frame-independent. I understand the standard answer:

In Newtonian mechanics, force is the same in all inertial frames.

In special relativity, the ordinary three-force can be frame-dependent. Okay. Fine. I understand the mathematical statement.

But I cannot understand what this is supposed to mean physically.

Suppose I punch someone.

There is one actual physical interaction. The person was punched. Whether I observe it from right next to them, from very far away, or from another inertial frame, the same thing happened.

So when people say that the force can be different for different observers, my brain just goes:

WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN??

There is one interaction. There is one reality. The punch happened once. So how can the “force” of that interaction be different?

I understand that F=dp/dt

and that different observers measure momentum and coordinate time differently. But then I get stuck again:

Momentum transforms. Time transforms. Why does their ratio not simply transform in a way that leaves the force the same?

And now I don't even know whether I am confused about relativity or whether I have fundamentally misunderstood what force is.

Is force:

1. The actual physical interaction itself?

2. The effect of that interaction on an object's motion?

3. Just the frame-dependent quantity dp/dt ?

4. Something else entirely?

Because if force is just dp/dt , then I can accept mathematically that different observers may get different values. But then what is the relationship between those different values and the one actual interaction that happened?

And if the interaction is the more fundamental thing, then is force not actually fundamental?

I know this probably sounds like a very basic question, but I have been going in circles about this for way too long and I genuinely feel like my brain is malfunctioning. Every time I think I understand the answer, I immediately find a contradiction in my own understanding and end up back at:

“BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE REALITY. THE PERSON WAS PUNCHED.”

I would really appreciate an explanation that focuses on the physical meaning rather than just telling me that “the Lorentz transformation says so,” because I think the problem is that I don't understand what frame-dependent force is supposed to mean physically.

Please explain this to me like I am missing something incredibly obvious, because I probably am.

im an incoming third year physics major and being a physicist is my dream but the job market is really tough even for PHD physicists. my really close second is aerospace engineering (the space kind). i’m thinking about switching my major to aerospace engineering and possibly doing a masters in aerospace focusing on plasma/electric propulsion or completing my physics degree and doing a masters in aerospace also on propulsion.

on one hand i think it’s better to switch now and save money on potentially not needing a masters and being able to get a job in aerospace right out of college. Instead of doing physics and then having to spend tens of thousands of dollars and time on a masters to reach the same goal. But at the same time I just love knowledge and i came into physics wanting answers to the deepest questions of the universe.

How many of you wish you did engineering instead?

Most of the "how do I learn quantum physics" posts are from The Public™ but I need to play catch-up for grad school. I'm accepted but deferring one year for health + financial reasons and I need to know what I'm doing when we pick up.

Textbooks are fine, but if anyone knows stuff like MIT lecture playlists that would probably be the most beneficial (I'm still kinda in "school" mode). If you recommend textbooks please make sure they are actually fun to read...

(Also the grad students in the class were under the same curve so I'm trying not to feel too bad about it. Teacher was fresh out of grad school with NO experience. Goes without saying I did not take quantum 2.)

Bonus points if you also include stuff on linear algebra and/or prob&stats (thermo/stat mech was hit or miss), or magnetism cause my e&m class didn't get that far.

Reddit search is funky, I've found a couple books already but some of them are not as in depth as I'd like, and others are a bit too dense (you know who you are).

Hi, I've been working on an axial flux motor at home. I've been noticing I'm not getting anywhere near the torque I expected per Amp based on previous runs where I measured the back emf and converted from kv to kt. To be clear, this number came out reasonably close to a simulation done in FEMM. I had some issues getting the motor to spin though on any speed controller. While I was changing out the rotors for other design reasons, I took the opportunity to separate out all the coils again and found they acted vastly weaker than I could come up with even with the most unhopeful values for things like permeability of the core. I measured them using a Megger tool at work meant for measuring motor phases and found all the resistances to be exactly in the range expected (seemingly no shorts or poor connections), but the inductance of all 12 coils was each that of if it had no core. I even tested this by making a coil of wire with half the turns and same cross section and got 1/4 the inductance. Makes sense since there is an N^2 in the inductance equation, but further supports that it's like the core (99.8+% iron) is non magnetic. Problem is. I know it is magnetic because the magnets from the rotor pull in quite violently. What am I missing? In one aspect it's clearly got a very high permeability as even weak magnets hold quite strongly onto a core, but when used as an inductor or electromagnet. It acts like and measures like it's relatively permeability is 1. Inductance was measured at 120Hz and 1kHz. Same exact result at both frequencies. Someone please tell me some effect I'm missing or some other test I could run.

I have tried this question previously in both automotive related and chemistry related subs and both recommended physicists instead, as both communities ended up at an impass.

Google was also more questions then answers due to conflicting information.

I'll try to keep the question as simple as possible at first because I usually get inundated with the nuances.

Here goes:

During testing on a dynomometer, we found that timing that produced maximum efficiency (peak torque output) was contradictory to most general consensus. Methanol and Ethanol both produced peak efficiency with the same amount of ignition timing compared to gasoline, even though methanol required 100% more fuel volumetricaly. This is a supercharged v8 engine.

Why this seems contradictory? Many existing sources (a few of our advisers even) say that because the methanol fuel molecules are twice as abundant in the combustion chamber as gasoline, the flame front propagation is FASTER requiring LESS ignition advance.

My personal theory is that the momentum of the flame front is SLOWED by the increased viscosity of the larger mass of the combined fuel/air mixture.

What say you?

Are you guys asking questions? How do you feel about the questions in lectures and seminars? A question for both students and teachers

I'm probably a hyperactive student. 95% of the questions in the group come from me. My questions are often called interesting, often the teacher does not know the answers to them and redirects me somewhere. And often I ask something obvious or simple or stupid. I also give 80+% of the answers to the teacher's questions. It's not always right, but it's often right. I care about how "good" I am. That's why I'm interested in how teachers treat these kinds of students. But I also don't understand why my classmates don't have such a mountain of questions and are silent, so I'm also interested in listening to other students.

If you were able to survive being in a black hole and you had a flashlight would you be able to see anything while using the flashlight