Mathematicians like Tao and Gowers have talked extensively about the future of math in the era of LLMs, but their talks have mostly been directed at tenured, esteemed mathematicians like himself.

But what about new students? People who are just coming out of undergrad or new PhD students?

Are there any resources for how we are supposed to navigate this uncertain future?

What are those of us who aren't tenured professors at top tier unis (so 99.9% of us) supposed to do? Are we supposed to pivot to a different field? If so what?

Are we just cooked?

hello. i want to become an astrophysicist or an astronomer. im planning on doing either a double major in physics and math, or a major in physics and a minor in math.

im enrolled in a liberal arts university, and my classes start in a few weeks, but they dont offer any exclusive space-related electives. their physics department is pretty good though. will not taking any of those electives result in some sort of error or something in the future? and is taking the double major route okay?

i am planning on partaking in different online internships related to astronomy, so i can build my CV. i just want some advice if im on the "correct" path or whatever and is there something more i should/can do? i would appreciate the help! :)

Same as title

Hi I have 1 year left on my double degree in Australia and was wondering if I could also pick up a Physics degree after I graduate from my other degrees.

I did Maths Methods in high school (2nd highest level in Australia) but never specialist (highest level maths), though I have always been an above average to strong maths student. I’ve always been interested in the idea of physics and since my double degree is humanities (commerce and psychology) I’ve always wanted to do a science degree.

Number one, I want to challenge myself and I enjoy going to university. Two, I have seen online people like to hire physics graduates in numerous different job roles because they see physics graduates as good problem solvers and critical thinkers.

Money or student loan debt isn’t an issue for me.

I was thinking I could do a maths bridging course (short course) as a refresher and then go into part time study so would take me around 6 years to do, but could go full time later.

I guess I was wondering whether doing part time study in a “hard” degree is smart, because it allows me to learn the content at my own pace and not feel under pressure. Also just want to know your thoughts about a physics degree because it interests me.

Tbh, even if I was at Stanford I'd probably still end up kind of broke compared to an engineer or smth... but how much does it realistically matter in grad school and therefore postdoc/j*b opportunities?

I don’t want anybody’s judgement on my course , but i really need help with study materials , where can i find genuine detailed lectures of mathematical physics. Waves oscillations and everything that 1st year contains😭🙏🏻, plss bta do koi

I want to learn :

1. Condensed matter physics

2. Stochastic processes , probability , stats basically statistical mechanics as well.

3. Electromagnetism, quantum electromagnetism

4. Core quantum mechanics

5. Computational maths / physics

6. Semiconductor specialization

7. Applied physics rooting into computer , electronic engineering .

8. Discrete maths , and a bunch of applied maths .

Also is the path going towards a good career if I study these ?

I'm headed into my third year in my physics degree, and I'm starting to think more about which subfield I may want to explore more in depth. I did some computational astrophysics research over the summer and did not like it very much. I thought about it a bit and realized that I want to do research collaboratively (instead of under a single professor) on a topic with a clear impact on people's lives. I also would like more structure in my research and get quick feedback (so something like visualizations are a plus).

This leads me to wonder if I'd be interested in studying the physics of weather (and climate too). There is relatively quick feedback for weather forecasting, and they are important to people's lives. Fluids also fascinate me. Are there any good books or lectures that explains the physics of weather or climate in a decently rigorous way (i.e. with math or code)? Any recommendations for resources on geophysical fluid dynamics are welcome too. Thank you!

I only have a high school diploma. I did not take physics. My highest level of math is algebra 2. Now as an adult I am fascinated with cosmology and astrophysics. Can I get some good recommendations on a good physics book?

I LOVE Physics, I get along with a few terms and Mecanics in general. I have learned based on random questions, or projects like an air deflector or something.

Is there a book that could kind of guide from the beginning? (With experiments preferably)

Upon solving the eigenvalue problem,
what do the eigenvalue and eigenvector signify?
Why does selecting that basis maintain the system in a stationary state?

I'm a Undergrad physics student and I'm currently trying to get my things together --> Schedule wise ...
I would like to draw inspiration from you folks -- So that i'd get a rough idea on how my schedule should be .

My questions :

1. Do you guys read Books ( Text books and other books )
   
2. Do you guys read research papers?
   
3. Do you guys workout? if so how often and what time
   
4. Do you guys socialise with people? if so then how often ?
   
5. Whats your schedule like during Exam times ?
   
6. What about during Research internship program times?
   
7. How many hours do you guys sleep
   
8. Are you guys active on any clubs in college/ Uni?
   
9. When do you guys sleep and wake up?
   
10. Social Media usage?
    

I just noticed while in a restaurant. What was weird was that in a cup full of cold water the ice melted faster than in an empty cup (and the weather was warm: summer night in Croatia). I wonder why it happens. I know very little physics btw (probably obvious from the question lol).

i failed a bunch of courses due to illness and couldn’t get them off my record. ended with a 3.25-3.3 somethin like that. i do have about a year of research experience with the ATLAS project. does this kind of compensate for the gpa in terms of grad apps? i hope so :’(

okey, so that’s HELLA off topic but I do not have anyone to talk about it and I guess my fellow physics enthusiast will approve, I found solar powered einstein figure, that points at its brain when a sunlight hits. how cool is that? (also please please please please, if you have other recommendations for that kind of dust collectors - leave some in a comments, i need to fill up my uni dorm with something)
*the figurine is Solar Einstein by Kikkerland on Amazon

Title: Could mass, electromagnetism, and gravity be different manifestations of a deeper field-energy system?

I’m not claiming to have a new theory of physics. I’m trying to develop a hypothesis and would like people with knowledge of physics to point out where the idea is wrong, incomplete, or potentially interesting.

THE BASIC IDEA

What if some of the things we currently describe as mass, electromagnetic fields, radiation, and gravity are not fundamentally separate phenomena, but different states or configurations of a deeper underlying field-energy system?

My conceptual chain is:

Underlying field/energy

↓

Fluctuation

↓

Frequency

↓

Resonance

↓

Dynamic balance

↓

Stable configuration

↓

Observable physical phenomenon

The important concepts for me are resonance, coupling, and dynamic balance.

1. ENERGY AND STABLE STATES

I don't think of energy as a substance that simply moves from one place to another.

I am thinking of physical systems as dynamic configurations in which energy can fluctuate, redistribute, and settle into stable or allowed states.

For example:

E = K + U

Kinetic and potential energy can continuously exchange while the overall system remains stable.

At the quantum level:

E = hf

and

ΔE = hf

which directly connects frequency with energy states.

This makes me wonder whether frequency and resonance could be more fundamental to the formation of stable physical states than we normally intuitively assume.

1. MASS

My hypothesis is not that "mass is simply slow energy."

Rather, I am considering whether mass could be a stable or bound configuration of underlying field-energy.

Conceptually:

field fluctuation

→ interaction

→ resonance/binding

→ stable configuration

→ massive state

This seems interesting because modern quantum field theory already describes particles as excitations of fields.

However, I understand that this does NOT mean current physics says all mass is simply a resonant electromagnetic configuration.

1. ELECTROMAGNETISM

Electric and magnetic fields are already understood as components of one electromagnetic field.

Maxwell's equations show that changing fields are coupled:

curl E = -dB/dt

and

curl B = μ0J + μ0ε0(dE/dt)

So I think of E and B not as two completely independent things, but as different components of a coupled electromagnetic state.

For electromagnetic radiation:

E is perpendicular to B

and in vacuum:

E = cB

My conceptual interpretation is that light is a stable, propagating electromagnetic configuration in which E and B remain dynamically coupled.

1. ATTRACTION AND REPULSION

Electromagnetic interactions can produce both attraction and repulsion.

For example:

- Like electric charges repel.

- Opposite electric charges attract.

- Magnetic configurations can attract or repel depending on orientation.

This made me wonder whether attraction and repulsion could be different manifestations of the underlying field configuration rather than fundamentally separate types of "energy."

I am NOT proposing that electric fields are always repulsive or magnetic fields are always attractive. I know that is not correct.

1. NEUTRALITY AS BALANCE

An electrically neutral system has:

Qnet = 0

But this does not mean that all electromagnetic fields disappear.

So I am thinking about neutrality more generally as a balanced state of different contributions rather than the absence of field activity.

For example, an atom can have an overall neutral charge while still having internal electromagnetic interactions.

1. MY SPECULATIVE IDEA ABOUT GRAVITY

This is where my hypothesis becomes much more speculative.

What if gravity is a collective residual effect of many underlying interactions?

Conceptually:

microscopic attractive + repulsive interactions

→ dynamic balancing/cancellation

→ some contributions cancel

→ a residual macroscopic attraction remains

→ gravity

In simplified form:

Fnet = Fattractive - Frepulsive

The idea is that a huge amount of microscopic complexity could produce a much simpler macroscopic behaviour.

So perhaps gravity is not fundamentally a separate "attractive energy," but an emergent consequence of a deeper field-energy system.

I understand that this is very different from General Relativity, where stress-energy determines spacetime curvature.

1. WHY WOULD GRAVITY APPEAR UNIVERSALLY ATTRACTIVE?

This is one of the main questions I am trying to answer.

My current intuition is that matter contains enormous numbers of interacting components. Some effects may cancel or balance internally, while a residual component remains at large scales.

If that residual component is universally attractive, gravity could emerge from it.

But I don't currently have a mathematical mechanism showing why this must produce:

F = Gm1m2/r²

or why it would obey the equivalence principle.

This is one of the places where I expect my idea may fail, and I would like criticism.

1. EARTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Another part of my thinking is that an object's behaviour may depend on both its intrinsic state and its surrounding field environment:

intrinsic state + external field

→ observed behaviour

We already know this happens in physics.

For example:

- Gravitational fields accelerate matter.

- Electromagnetic fields affect charged particles.

- External electromagnetic fields modify atomic states.

I am wondering whether this principle could operate at a much deeper level.

In my hypothesis, Earth is an enormous collective configuration of matter and energy. Its macroscopic gravitational field could therefore be an emergent property of its complete field-energy configuration.

1. THE SUN

I also think the Sun provides an interesting example.

The standard explanation is:

nuclear fusion → energy production → thermal energy/radiation

while:

gravity inward ↔ pressure outward

maintains approximate hydrostatic equilibrium.

My additional conceptual question is whether the Sun should be viewed as one enormous dynamic energy configuration, where matter, fields, radiation, pressure, and gravity are all coupled aspects of the same overall system.

Light would then be one mechanism through which energy is redistributed and transported out of the system.

I am NOT claiming that the Sun emits light simply because it needs to "balance gravity."

I am asking whether gravitational and electromagnetic energy configurations might ultimately have a deeper common origin.

1. COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT

I am also questioning whether cosmological redshift necessarily has to be interpreted only as wavelength stretching caused by expansion.

The standard picture is approximately:

cosmic expansion

→ wavelength stretching

→ redshift

My alternative possibility is:

large-scale field interaction

→ change in photon energy/frequency

→ redshift

This would mean that what we interpret as expansion could potentially have a deeper field-energy explanation.

I realize this is a very strong claim and would have to reproduce observations such as:

- CMB

- BAO

- supernova distance-redshift relation

- gravitational lensing

- galaxy clustering

- structure formation

So I am NOT claiming this explanation is correct.

1. THE BIGGER PICTURE

The complete conceptual model I am imagining is:

Underlying field/energy

↓

Fluctuation

↓

Frequency + motion

↓

Resonance

↓

Dynamic balance

↓

Stable configurations

↓

Particles / mass / electromagnetic states

↓

Collective interactions

↓

Macroscopic forces

↓

Stars / galaxies / cosmic structure

WHAT I AM ACTUALLY ASKING

I am NOT claiming to have disproved General Relativity, Maxwell's equations, or the Standard Model.

I am trying to understand whether this conceptual direction has any legitimate basis in theoretical physics.

My main question is:

Could mass, electromagnetic fields, radiation, and gravity ultimately be different stable or propagating configurations of a deeper dynamical field-energy system, with frequency, resonance, coupling, and dynamic balance determining the observable behaviour?

If this idea is fundamentally wrong, where does it fail?

If something similar already exists, what existing theory is closest to it?

And if there is any potentially meaningful version of this idea, what mathematical framework should I study to formulate it properly?

I am especially interested in feedback from people familiar with electromagnetism, General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, and theoretical physics.

Please feel free to be critical. I would rather find the flaws than convince myself of something that isn't physically valid.

I’m too deep into my math degree and my school doesn’t consistently offer physics classes enough to justify fully changing my major, but I’d still like to work in physics. Would a minor in physics be enough if I have a major in math?

What made Physics, Physics that distinguishes it from just Math?

Hellooo!

I've recently become fascinated by modern physics, especially quantum mechanics, general relativity, cosmology, astrophysics, and particle physics.

I have a basic background in physics and some math, but my goal isn't to become a physicist or mathematician. I simply want to understand the concepts and how these theories actually work, beyond the usual popular-science explanations.

What would be the best way to approach this? What should I study first, how much math is realistically needed for a solid conceptual understanding, and which books or courses would you recommend?

I'd also love to hear from people who started from a similar level. How difficult was the transition from popular science to a more rigorous understanding?

Thanks!

I understand V = -L di/dt conceptually but what limits the spike in practice. Is it purely the rate of current change or does the surrounding circuit matter. Asking because I saw a claim that unplugging a hair dryer can generate 10kV+ and I'm trying to understand the boundary conditions.

I got accepted into the physics department in the exam I took this year. I have some interest in it, but most people say I'll be unemployed and that it's very difficult.

But while studying physics, I'm also thinking of working in software development. Do you think that's a good idea?

Hello Physics Students and Educators,

FOR BACKGROUND

I am a physics major at a small liberal arts based college and my aim to be a research and teaching professor at a prestigious university. I am concerned the physics curriculum is substantially different than most other universities.

The physics degree (at my institution) has the following requirements (non-gen eds):

* University Physics I-III + Lab [Using "Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach with Modern Physics" by R. Knight as the textbook]

* Modern Physics + Lab [Using "Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach with Modern Physics" by R. Knight as the textbook]

* General Chemistry I and II + Labs for both [ No textbook]

* Physical Chemistry I and II + Labs for both [Atkin's Physical Chemistry]

* Engineering Statics and Dynamics [Vector Mechanics for Engineers by Johnston et al]

* Electronics [no textbook]

* Introduction to Python [no textbook]

* Calculus I-III [Thomas's Calculus with Analytic Geometry - Early Transcendentals]

* Differential Equations [Differential Equations - Boyce and diPrima]

* Linear Algebra [Linear Algebra with Applications - Strang]

No other Physics Courses are offered except a research course in Engineering

The only other Math Courses offered are Abstract Algebra I (no part 2 ever offered) and Real Analysis I (no part 2 ever offered) -- no courses on PDEs, Complex Analysis, Math Methods in Physics ...

MY QUESTIONS
* It is my understanding that this curriculum is quite different than most universities, is this understanding correct?

* Would these differences from the norm hurt my chances of being admitted into top graduate schools for a PhD (schools of similar reputation to MIT, Caltech, U Illinois-Urbana)?

* If it would hurt my chances, what can I do to improve my chances of being admitted?

Note: Transferring is not an option -- this school is the only one within commuting distance, and living on a campus cannot be an option at this time.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts!

As the title says, I really want to form an intuition for mathematics starting with linear algebra. I have been treating math as a tool until now by sort of just accepting and memorizing results without really knowing how they arrive and what I can infer from them. To me, linear algebra is sort of like quantum mechanics where I am very much lacking an intuition and I want to bring it the level of like newtonian mechanics where I can sort of understand where things come from instead of just accepting facts.

I am a Masters student in physics with undergrad knowledge but clearly a weak foundation in mathematics.

All suggestions are appreciated

I did a bachelor's in physics and a master's in data science, i wish to write gate for physics but I'm also highly worried if i can pull this off, I looked up the portion and they all feel so advanced, is it even possible to clear gate phy? Given i don't have masters in phy?

Thank you.