Why bother becoming a physicist?

[MathematicalPhysicist]

by the way...I don't understand exactly why you guys consider the female physics professor "hot"...no offense but she doesn't "look" that special.

just saying.

that's ok, just one reatrdedbastard think so.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

In the kingdom of the blind - the one eyed man is king?

Personally I think she looks very nice - but as I like intelligent women (hope my wife is reading this) I'm biased.

there are intelligent women that also look good, this is not one of them... (-:

 

[RetardedBastard]

by the way...I don't understand exactly why you guys consider the female physics professor "hot"...no offense but she doesn't "look" that special.

just saying.

Are you and loop quantum gravity looking at the same picture of her as I am? Seriously, I think she's absolutely good looking in her pic at the harvard website. If she's reading this, Lisa you can explain warped dimensions to me anytime of day.

 

[RetardedBastard]

there are intelligent women that also look good, this is not one of them... (-:

I have a link that will, upon proper usage, change your mind. Please follow it :)

http://www.lenscrafters.com

 

[CompuChip]

I haven't read every post in the past three pages, but here's another one...

I'm thinking about it, but why bother? We will never understand the universe at a basic level. It's futile. The universe is too vast and too complicated for us to ever understand.

Why become a physicist? Well, why not? Why become a construction worker? Any building we can build will be demolished eventually. Why become a meteorologist? Even if we can predict the weather, we can't change it, so it's no use anyway. Why become a bank employee? All you do all day is shift around money which only exists on paper and -- though utterly worthless -- somehow is what thrives our economy and our lives. Why become anything at all? In the end you'll die anyway.

 

[TeTeC]

All right. I propose group suicide.

 

[Pythagorean]

I study physics because I find it interesting, not because I derive some ultimate meaning or because I think I'm doing something especially important.

Completely selfish, I know.

 

[NuclearEngineer]

Out of curiosity, can you go into detail on this claim? What subjects? What info is now taught that wasn't taught just 10 years ago?

Well ofcourse even though its a waste of me time why not.

Calculus: Diffrential calculus was not taught in high school they only started it in the 1990's. The curriculam has evolved since then, now we also learn about antiderivatives. My teachers are surprised by how much change has been made to the curriculim since he was in grade 12 10 years ago.

Physics: Since there was no diffrential calculus taught back then 2 and three dimensional physics were taught moderately and with no special explanations.Reference:Textbook physics 12*(Published mcgrahill- 1986)
Textbook physics grade 12*(Published mcgrawhill -2006).

Computer science: I am not even going to go there.

Biology- Life science courses and become so elaborate that intstead of piling up information on kids in university high school students(in ontario) are required to learn about biochemistry(enzymes), genomics, and human anotomy to a greater degree.

Discrete math: Now tis sis a hard course that has only been around for the ast 3 years in Ontario curriculum.


All these courses and more have been added to school institution all around North America and not only in north america. Schools in India and china teach students factorials and differentiation from grade 10. Since information is now readily available schools are able to choose how to change their curriculum based on theirs and the students needs.


This response was after looking at textbooks published from two years ago in comparision to textbooks published 8 years ago. Curriculum are constantly evolving. Although I do not have much information about other high schools in North america I am hoping that they all share(or are close with the standards) to the Ontario currisulum.

* I did not mean to offend anyone by this message*

 

[NuclearEngineer]

I am sorry not 10 times more. But prolly half way :)

 

[trinitron]

"cause to be honest...not all geniuses are happy. so if your trying to become a great scientist but you have the wrong motive, your achievements won't even be satisfying."

But you implicitly assume that happiness should be one's goal in life, which isn't an irrelevant assumption in a discussion on why one should do ____ in life.

 

[strings235]

first of all, I'm kinda not understanding what you're saying. are you supporting me or against me? you say happiness isn't irrelevant (meaning it's relevent) but you have a cynical tone. ah?

maybe happiness has a connotation that is too innocent and romantic to be appreciated. I should say satisfaction. one's occupation should give satisfaction that is unbaised by avarice for power and superiority (being a genius, gainning awards, etc.).

So what you're trying to say is that people might not do things for satisfaction but they'll do it for no reason? or are you saying people do it to pain themselves? or is there an even more general motive in life than satisfaction?


this is an interesting philosophy conversation let's keep going.

 

[Winzer]

Just for the sure sake of knowing, you have to be curious and creative. Also the girls.

 

[trinitron]

"first of all, I'm kinda not understanding what you're saying. are you supporting me or against me? you say happiness isn't irrelevant (meaning it's relevent) but you have a cynical tone. ah?"

What I meant was that if we're talking about why one ought to do something in life, and you in your arguments assume that happiness is the goal in life and that actions should be taken based on the effect on one's happiness, then you should make this explicit. The reason is that someone else may not view happiness as life's goal, but instead something else (accomplishment, greatness, fame, freedom, etc.).

The modern conception of happiness (I hope this doesn't come off as some kind of 'kids these days' comment, I mean this in distinction from other conceptions of happiness such as the Greek - see eudaimonia) is certainly not something I would make my primary pursuit. But that is a whole discussion by itself. See 'Happiness: The science behind your smile" by Nettle for a good discussion of this.

Now you instead turn to satisfaction, which I interpret as something much more similar to eudaimonia which I mentioned before. I've never really liked this term because it is so broad and ambiguous and it seems like anything can be filed under it. Some people believe that they need to establish their freedom of mind from their animal instinct by inflicting pain upon themselves. I would say these people are of the mind that freedom is most important, yet you can place freedom under eudaimonia. This seems to just confuse the issue.

If someone agreed to cut off their arm to save a thousand people, because they thought it was morally required of them, is the action satisfying?

Sorry for the poor writing, I hope it was clear enough.

 

[George Jones]

Calculus: Diffrential calculus was not taught in high school they only started it in the 1990's.

I went to a medium/large sized public high school in a small town, and, in Ontario, at least, this is completely incorrect.

The curriculam has evolved since then, now we also learn about antiderivatives. My teachers are surprised by how much change has been made to the curriculim since he was in grade 12 10 years ago.

My older siblings and I took high school calculus courses that, as part of the standard curriculum, included not only differential calculus and antiderivatives, but also techniques of integration like substitution and integration by parts. These topics were all covered in the text.

Physics: Since there was no diffrential calculus taught back then 2 and three dimensional physics were taught moderately and with no special explanations.Reference:Textbook physics 12*(Published mcgrahill- 1986)
Textbook physics grade 12*(Published mcgrawhill -2006).

I don't remember much about the physics courses (two years), but I thought they were reasonable. I believe we (the students in groups) even did an experiment to measure Planck's constant. I was lucky to have a physics teacher who had a degree (from Waterloo) in physics. This is a rarity these days.

Computer science: I am not even going to go there.

I took two years of computer science (Fortran programming) in high school. In the second year (grade 12), we did elementary numerical analysis, and we wrote programmes for various methos for each of the following: solving systems of linear equations; roots of general non-linear equations; area under a curve (definite integration). Again, I was taught by someone who had a university degree in the subject.

In terms of material covered and the quality of the teachers, high schools in Ontario have not caught up to where they were decades ago.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

I have a link that will, upon proper usage, change your mind. Please follow it :)

http://www.lenscrafters.com

it didn't change my mind.
perhaps without glasses she'd be looking good... (-: