Can a computer illiterate graduate in theoretical physics?

[QuantumCurt]

It was never said that one needed to know programming for all fields. It was said that one needed to be computer literate. Economics can involve a great deal of programming. It involves a lot of statistics and distributions and such, which are best handled by computers these days. Psychology doesn't require much programming, but it involves a great deal of computer usage and can involve a lot of statistics and such. The same can be said for law. All of these fields are going to involve using computers to create spread sheets and graphs and such. There's really no getting around the need for computer literacy these days. It is a central part of how our society functions.

 

[radium]

It's not that difficult. Though I enjoy the algorithmic way of thinking, I am not so enthusiastic about learning programming syntax, so I just learn that as I go. I know how to use Mathematica pretty well, the Command line, I know LaTex very well, and I am becoming more proficient in Matlab and Python nowadays. I learned pretty much everything I know in Mathematica from the documentation center. Same as LaTex. If you don't know what something is look there, if you can't find it/don't know what it's called, go to google.

For the more analytical project I did in undergrad (condensed matter theory) I made all the figures in Mathematica which seems to be a common computational tool for theorists who do more analytical work. They also may use Matlab if for example they are trying to solve the Einstein equation for some metric in AdS/CFT.

 

[SteamKing]

Psychology, Economics, Law, all well regarded disciplines encompassing little to no programming. I will concede however that it is intrisic to modern mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology graduates.

It might surprise you to know that economists deal with reams of data collected from all forms of commerce and other economic activity. They also put together extremely sophisticated economic models to help forecast prices and such. There were two prize-winning economists who tried to develop a formula or model which could be used to price various types of options, but the real world results of its application to the actual market cost them a fortune.

The Law handles volumes of data, but it is mostly in text form. A modern law office cannot function without computers. When you see lawyers in their offices, they are usually depicted being surrounded by many books, presumably filled with case law. However, instead of researching thru these many tomes, looking for the right case, there is a huge database called Lexis which can be used to search for relevant case law. The day to day stuff, like forms, affidavits, depositions, etc., all have equivalent electronic versions, which can be transmitted without being put on piles of dead trees and hauled around like so many phone books.

The most infamous person who tried to insulate and isolate his existence from the electronic world was Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, and his is a cautionary tale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

 

[Pleonasm]

It might surprise you to know that economists deal with reams of data collected from all forms of commerce and other economic activity. They also put together extremely sophisticated economic models to help forecast prices and such. There were two prize-winning economists who tried to develop a formula or model which could be used to price various types of options, but the real world results of its application to the actual market cost them a fortune.

The Law handles volumes of data, but it is mostly in text form. A modern law office cannot function without computers. When you see lawyers in their offices, they are usually depicted being surrounded by many books, presumably filled with case law. However, instead of researching thru these many tomes, looking for the right case, there is a huge database called Lexis which can be used to search for relevant case law. The day to day stuff, like forms, affidavits, depositions, etc., all have equivalent electronic versions, which can be transmitted without being put on piles of dead trees and hauled around like so many phone books.

The most infamous person who tried to insulate and isolate his existence from the electronic world was Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, and his is a cautionary tale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

You are blurring an obvious distinction between computer storing and computation/programming.

 

[Pleonasm]

The most infamous person who tried to insulate and isolate his existence from the electronic world was Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, and his is a cautionary tale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

And the psychologist of course diagnosed him with Paranoid schizophrenia. Why am I not surprised by psychologists simplistic minds. Not the first or last time. The discipline of psychology is in need of major revision, but that's for a separate discussion.

 

[clope023]

Are you in fact sure of your contention above, that such courses are eventually mandatory?

Any math or physics program worth their salt would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

 

[QuantumCurt]

You are blurring an obvious distinction between computer storing and computation/programming.

I don't think it's really a blurred distinction. Economics can use a great deal of programming. The computer usage of a law office tends to involve more in the way of storage than it does programming, but it's still relevant because it requires one to be computer literate. This doesn't just mean knowing how to type a Word document and find a file. It means knowing how to do these things efficiently with a logical system. It's not unusual for lawyers to need to create spreadsheets or graphs.

In either case, I'm not sure what the relevance is here. Yes, there are careers out there that don't involve any computer programming. However, the careers in which you've expressed interest do happen to require some programming.

 

[Physics Monkey]

Pleonasm,

The extent to which you need to be able to work with a computer varies a lot based on what type of physics you want to do and what problems you work on.

Every senior graduate student I know is capable of writing papers using LaTeX (for typesetting scientific documents), so this seems like a must these days. Also, many graduate students are now able to use a program like Mathematica or MATLAB to help do integrals and the like. I would encourage you to think of these things as resources to aid in thinking. For example, it really helps to be able to do little numerical "experiments" when thinking through a complicated problem.

Examples:

In string theory one class of interesting problem concerns classification of different kinds of Calabi-Yau manifolds. There is a lot of "pure theory" here but at the end of the day people I know ultimately write computer programs to produce lists of such manifolds. These programs are not ultimately that complicated but it is used in research.

In condensed matter theory one is often concerned with the energy levels of some system of weakly interacting fermions. Unless the problem has a lot of symmetry it is often necessary to diagonalize a matrix to determine the energies. Again, some computation is required but it is not a very complex program.

In theoretical particle physics one computes a lot of integrals (Feynman diagrams) where again a simple integrator program like Mathematica is widely used.

In AdS/CFT research one solves a lot of coupled ordinary differential equations. Again, something like Mathematica is widely used.

In quantum information science, many ideas are first tested on systems of a few qubits using a computer. This helps build intuition and is a source of conjectures.

and so on ...

Of course, there is a lot of physics that is much more computational than this, but even fairly abstract disciplines tend to use the computer a little bit. After all, physics is not just about abstract ideas but about bringing those ideas into the messy details of the real world.

However, I would again encourage you, if you can, to not dwell on the computer is a burden to be overcome. Instead try to think of it as a powerful tool to help you do better physics. For example, often times asking yourself the question "how could I tell a computer to do this?" clarifies your thinking by forcing you to be very explicit and leave nothing undefined.

One suggestion for improving your feeling towards computers and computation which helped me is to delve into the theory of computation. What I mean is that computers are not just tools but also a source of tremendous "pure mathematical" insight. Deep questions like what does it mean to know something, or prove something, or learn something have all been powerfully influenced by computer theory. Computers have also had a profound impact on our conceptualization of the mind. Abstract computational theory is even playing an increasing role in physics. In short, I found joy in thinking about the abstract questions of computation and it helped make the practical parts much easier and more exciting for me.

 

[Pleonasm]

Pleonasm,

The extent to which you need to be able to work with a computer varies a lot based on what type of physics you want to do and what problems you work on.

Let's take astrophysics - cosmology (origin of the universe) - relativity - quantum mechanics. I have been told that a theoretical astrophysicist works differently with computers from that of a theoretical physicist, and that astrophysics it's the least math-heavy discipline in physics.

Does a theoretical astrophysicst extrapolate more than a theoretical physicist?

 

[micromass]

Let's take astrophysics - cosmology (origin of the universe) - relativity - quantum mechanics. I have been told that a theoretical astrophysicist works differently with computers from that of a theoretical physicist, and that astrophysics it's the least math-heavy discipline in physics.

Does a theoretical astrophysicst extrapolate more than a theoretical physicist?

There is no such thing as a theoretical physicist. You can do theory in physics in almost every branch. So you can do theoretical GR, you can do theoretical condensed matter, etc.

 

[Pleonasm]

There is no such thing as a theoretical physicist. You can do theory in physics in almost every branch. So you can do theoretical GR, you can do theoretical condensed matter, etc.

There is no such thing as a theoretical physicist? Haha. You mean other than the fact that there is a theoretical physics graduate school? Astrophysics, on the other hand, is located in the astronomy department.

 

[micromass]

There is no such thing as a theoretical physicist? Haha. You mean other than the fact that there is a theoretical physics graduate school? Astrophysics, on the other hand, is located in the astronomy department.

I'm just saying that asking what computer skills a theoretical physics needs is as broad as asking what skills a human being needs: it's depending on the specific situation.

 

[QuantumCurt]

There's no such thing as a "theoretical physicist" in the sense of that being a job title. There are theorists working in every branch of physics from quantum field theory, relativity, classical mechanics, materials science, condensed matter, and any other field of physics imaginable. In other words, one is not going to see a job listing saying "we need a theoretical physicist." That says next to nothing about the actual nature of the job. More likely, one would see something along the lines of "theorist in field A, with experience working in the intersection of sub-fields X and Y within field A, using methods B, C, and D." Similarly, if one were to say "I'm a theoretical physicist," there is virtually zero information to say what it is that one actually does. In that sense, there's no such thing as a theoretical physicist.

The question "Does a theoretical astrophysicst extrapolate more than a theoretical physicist?" isn't really answerable. That's the point. A "theoretical astrophysicist" encompasses a wide range of subjects. It's not as though all astrophysicists are working on the same kinds of projects or using the same kind of methods. Some of them are likely to make very heavy use of programming. Some barely use it for anything.

You ask if a theoretical astrophysicist extrapolates more than a theoretical physicist. First we have to determine exactly what type of project this astrophysicist is working in. Then...what do you mean by theoretical physicist? Is this person working on superconducting materials? Quantum field theory? Relativity? There's a similar trend here. Some areas will use a ton of programming. Other areas will barely use it at all.

You're asking questions that don't really have a simple answer. You're asking whether A or B involves more programming...and the answer depends greatly upon many factors about the specific nature of both A and B that are not specified in your question.

 

[ZapperZ]

Let's take astrophysics - cosmology (origin of the universe) - relativity - quantum mechanics. I have been told that a theoretical astrophysicist works differently with computers from that of a theoretical physicist, and that astrophysics it's the least math-heavy discipline in physics.

Does a theoretical astrophysicst extrapolate more than a theoretical physicist?

I'm surprised this thread is still going on and on and on...

You are pulling hairs, here. How many job opening do you THINK, are available in the very strict, narrow capabilities that you are asking for here? Seriously!

Even if you don't care about learning how to use computers, think about your "EMPLOYABILITY" when you enter the job market! What are your chances of getting an employment when you have ZERO capability of using a computer, or doing computing, as part of your skill? Are you that delusional into thinking that you have such a bright chance of getting a faculty job with such a narrow capability and skills?

Despite the overwhelming advice you've been getting, you continue to find some "escape clause", no matter how poor it is, in trying to avoid learning something that is easily a benefit! I think you should continue doing what you've been doing, i.e. avoiding any interaction with using computers in your academic setting. The ONLY way that all that has been said here will sink in and be apparent to you is when you graduate and try to find a job.

Zz.

 

[QuantumCurt]

The only thing I'd add to my previous comments is a bit of an analogy.

Let's suppose that someone gets hired to be the grill cook at McDonald's or any other restaurant for that matter. Let's further suppose that this person catches on...they're great at running the grill. And then a slow day comes and the manager tells the employee to go in back and wash some dishes. If the employee says "Oh, no way. I've never washed any dishes before. That's not part of my job description. I'm just here to run the grill." How do you think the employer is going to react? Are they going to say "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you'd never washed dishes before. Never mind, we'll find someone else to do it."? No, they're not. They're going to tell the employee that washing dishes is a part of the job and that they'd better learn how to wash dishes.

This analogy isn't perfect, but I think it works well enough for the purpose. If someone is employed as a "theoretical physicist" in some branch of physics, and encounters a portion of a project that involves some programming, it's going to be assumed that they have the ability to write the program, or at least have the resources to learn how to write it. If one does not have this capability, it makes one a far less desirable employee, because there are likely to be many other qualified applicants with the same experience, in addition to experience writing code.

The job listing I described earlier was "theorist in field A, with experience working in the intersection of sub-fields X and Y within field A, using methods B, C, and D." This job listing will also frequently include "Programming experience required. Experience using programming language z is not required, but greatly preferred." Point being - it is essential for anyone looking toward a future in mathematics or the physical sciences to be at least familiar with the basics of programming. You've gotten a lot of advice. You can either take it or leave it, but as someone who is working toward a similar goal, I know that I'm certainly going to be learning as much programming as I can.

 

[Pleonasm]

Nowhere will you find me objecting to the vital component of computers in modern physics. To the contrary, I wrote it's clearly intrinsic judging from this thread and my previous knowledge of the natural sciences. My question was how much.

However, since you guys clearly challenge me, becoming a philosophy doctorate does not entail programming of any sort as part of the job description. One of my graduations will be in philosophy, and I will be a doctorate with a position in the department. My professor of theoretical philosophy praised a text I wrote overnight, comparing me to other great thinkers. This being while I suffer from great depressions and haven't even got started. My asperger was not a plea to sympathy, it was explaining how I am very different.

The purpose of the thread was to ask a question, not to advocate anything. You guys are seeing ghosts...

 

[QuantumCurt]

No, philosophy isn't likely to require much of anything in the way of programming...depending on the field. If one is working in formal logic, computer science can often be a closely related field. Epistemological thought can often involve computers and programming as an example in a discussion of what the nature of knowledge is. John Searle's famous Chinese Room Argument is essentially a question of whether or not computers can be said to have knowledge or to actually know something. And to properly analyze this argument, one must have an understanding of how computers perform tasks. Many other areas of debate in epistemology utilize computers as examples as well. In making such an argument, an understanding of what computers are, and how they actually work in a technical sense is of great importance. If one is working in complex formal logic or areas of modal logic, one often has to analyze long strings of logical statements, which is often performed algorithmically via a computer program. In general, formal logic is basically how a computer works. It's very related to philosophy.

I'm honestly hard pressed to think of a single academic field that wouldn't greatly benefit by knowing how to write code.

In either case, I'm not really sure why you keep bringing up examples like psychology, economics, philosophy, and other fields that are not the fields you are proposing entering.

 

[Pleonasm]

No, philosophy isn't likely to require much of anything in the way of programming...depending on the field. If one is working in formal logic, computer science can often be a closely related field. Epistemological thought can often involve computers and programming as an example in a discussion of what the nature of knowledge is. John Searle's famous Chinese Room Argument is essentially a question of whether or not computers can be said to have knowledge or to actually know something. And to properly analyze this argument, one must have an understanding of how computers perform tasks. Many other areas of debate in epistemology utilize computers as examples as well. In making such an argument, an understanding of what computers are, and how they actually work in a technical sense is of great importance. If one is working in complex formal logic or areas of modal logic, one often has to analyze long strings of logical statements, which is often performed algorithmically via a computer program. In general, formal logic is basically how a computer works. It's very related to philosophy.

While formal logic may be intrinsic to philosophical argumentation, formal logic involving programming is most certainly not. It is optional.

In either case, I'm not really sure why you keep bringing up examples like psychology, economics, philosophy, and other fields that are not the fields you are proposing entering.

It's for the simple fact that some people ruled out a computer illiterate from any academia. I don't consider a person capable of switching on the computer, using word, emailing and other such things to be anywhere near programming capabilities. Your comparisons are laughable. Such a person could very well be a computer illiterate.

 

[QuantumCurt]

Having a professional quality socket set isn't intrinsic to being an auto mechanic, but it sure does make things easier when one has the best tools for the job at their disposal, rather than a 16 piece socket set from a dollar store.

Formal logic involving programming is not intrinsic to philosophical argumentation. You're right about that. I never suggested that this was the case.

However, you said:

However, since you guys clearly challenge me, becoming a philosophy doctorate does not entail programming of any sort as part of the job description.

Are you suggesting that philosophy will never entail any type of programming? I provided a couple of examples to show that this is not the case. I was not in any sense suggesting that programming was intrinsic to doing philosophy. I was simply showing you that even this field has numerous connections to programming, even if they are not a central aspect of the field itself. I'll again revert to my earlier example of the McDonald's worker that doesn't know how to wash dishes. It's important to have skills, and to be able to adapt those skills to various jobs.

Please answer this question - If you get a job working in the field of math, physics, philosophy, economics, psychology or any of these other fields that you've mentioned, and end up encountering a project that involves some computer programming...what will you do?

Will you just accept that you're not capable of doing the job? Or will you adapt to it and learn the skills necessary to do it? If the latter, wouldn't it be easier to have learned some programming already?

 

[Pleonasm]

Having a professional quality socket set isn't intrinsic to being an auto mechanic, but it sure does make things easier when one has the best tools for the job at their disposal, rather than a 16 piece socket set from a dollar store.

Formal logic involving programming is not intrinsic to philosophical argumentation. You're right about that. I never suggested that this was the case.

However, you said:
Are you suggesting that philosophy will never entail any type of programming? I provided a couple of examples to show that this is not the case. I was not in any sense suggesting that programming was intrinsic to doing philosophy. I was simply showing you that even this field has numerous connections to programming, even if they are not a central aspect of the field itself. I'll again revert to my earlier example of the McDonald's worker that doesn't know how to wash dishes. It's important to have skills, and to be able to adapt those skills to various jobs.

Please answer this question - If you get a job working in the field of math, physics, philosophy, economics, psychology or any of these other fields that you've mentioned, and end up encountering a project that involves some computer programming...what will you do?

Will you just accept that you're not capable of doing the job? Or will you adapt to it and learn the skills necessary to do it? If the latter, wouldn't it be easier to have learned some programming already?

I would not be assigned to programming lectures of any sort in philosophy, since it's not my area of specialty. Such courses are quite rare as well (you will find at most one such course in an entire program). I would of course have to adjust in your hypothetical scenario if they were to force me. Maybe a future girlfriend would help out.

As to physics: I wouldn't be eligible to teach without it. The only "merit" I have in physics so far is corresponding with Frank Tipler. He was once a highly esteemed general relativist. But I am by no means as confident in physics as in philosophy.

 

[QuantumCurt]

If you assume that you will indeed get the professorship that you aspire to obtain. There are a lot more people applying for those jobs than there are jobs available though. It's important to have a plan B on hand.

It sounds like you've got it all figured out, so I'm not going to continue trying to convince you. But it seems like you have some deeply rooted defiance and resistance to learning something that is of benefit in essentially every single field of academia. It's challenging for you, and that's okay. Things don't always come easily, but we often gain the most from the things that challenge us the most. A couple of programming courses, or even a single programming course would only take up a small portion of your life, and yet it would automatically make you more qualified for many areas of basically all of the fields that you have expressed an interest in. You've basically changed your future goals a few times within this thread in avoidance of computer programming. You went from becoming a theoretical physicist to becoming a tenured philosophy professor that gets first pick of the courses they'd like to teach. That's a pretty radical turn of events. I strongly recommend evaluating your motives in avoiding learning something so incredibly beneficial.

 

[clope023]

There is no such thing as a theoretical physicist? Haha. You mean other than the fact that there is a theoretical physics graduate school? Astrophysics, on the other hand, is located in the astronomy department.

There's a difference between astronomers and astrophysicists but micromass is correct, there's no such thing as a general theoretical physicist any more. One specializes in a particular branch of physics like astrophysics, plasma physics, condensed matter physics, atomic physics, etc and you can become a theorist based on that specialization. The only thing a theoretical physics grad school existing means is that organization specializes in theory work about the myriad sub-fields of physics; no one does theory about the whole of physics. And yes, theoreticians do programming to test and verify the models they build with their equations.

 

[Pleonasm]

There's a difference between astronomers and astrophysicists but micromass is correct, there's no such thing as a general theoretical physicist any more. .

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae296.cfm

"Astronomy is the study of the universe beyond the Earth's atmosphere. The main branches are astrometry, celestial mechanics, and astrophysics."

Lawrence Krauss refers to himself in the past as "we theorists" when he was a particle physicist. You are simply wrong in saying that there are no theoretical physicist. An astrophysicist does not use computing in the same way as a theoretical physicist (graduating in a theoretical physics school).

 

[clope023]

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae296.cfm

"Astronomy is the study of the universe beyond the Earth's atmosphere. The main branches are astrometry, celestial mechanics, and astrophysics."

Lawrence Krauss refers to himself in the past as "we theorists" when he was a particle physicist. You are simply wrong in saying that there are no theoretical physicist. An astrophysicist does not use computing in the same way as a theoretical physicist (graduating in a theoretical physics school).

Nope, you're still wrong, an astronomer works on different things than an astrophysicist, despite the fact that they both work on things related to space.

Krauss is a cosmologist, and yes he would say 'we theorists' when talking about people who do theory work in physics, which encompasses the spectrum of people who do theory work in all of the sub branches of physics.

You don't know what you're talking about; there is no such thing as a general theoretical physicisist, there are theorists inside the different sub-fields of physics. A theoretical astrophysicist actually will use computing in a very similar way to theorists in other sub-fields, since the equations used in astrophysics is the same as for some other fields (fluids for instance).

 

[cgk]

Pleonasm, this is getting boring. I am tempted to say "great trolling! 9/10, slightly raged." But, unfortunately, I know people who think and argue like this in the real world, so I am not even sure if this is a caricature or a real mental problem.

 

[micromass]

So let me clarify my previous statement. Of course theoretical physics exists. But what I wanted to say (and perhaps didn't word well) is that the denomination "theoretical physics" is pretty meaningless. Certainly when discussing the question "What computer knowledge do I need for theoretical physics." It's just too broad.

 

[radium]

As a grad student in theoretical physics (which is what my degree will say), there are different subfields of theoretical physics which people specialize in. There are some rare cases where professors work in several different subfields (one of the professor at Chicago is a very good example), but they all started in one subfield and are able to work in several because there are often some similarities in many problems. Like the dissipation in a nonfermi liquid or a black hole can be studied with similar methods to those in fluid mechanics and things like the Higgs mechanism simultaneously occurs in condensed matter systems (actually where it was first discovered) and in particle physics.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...

 

[Drakkith]

This thread appears to have run its course and will remain locked.