Physics and Astrophysics

CPFC IRL

Hi guys just wondering what is the competition like to specialise in this in 3rd and 4th year of general science,how many places are and are the maths in it insanely difficult

cookiemonst3r

I've never heard of any competition for this course. There's never enough physics students for competition.

amortentia

Some of the Physics lecturers have said that there is a lot of competition for it and that it's popular (obviously within the Physics crowd, in relation to all of Science it's really unpopular). In first year we have Astrophysics lectures once a week, and I've heard quite a few people saying that they hate them.. So I'm really hoping that most people are going for straight Physics :P I'm interested to know about the maths too. You can see the intake on the table of prerequisites I think.

Podge_irl

The maths in astrophysics is straightforward enough (at least the bits I saw). Certainly no trickier then other physics specialisations and possibly slightly easier then some.

Course I didn't pay all that much attention to it cause I found it boring as all hell, but good luck!

Maybe_Memories

Podge_irl wrote: »

The maths in astrophysics is straightforward enough (at least the bits I saw). Certainly no trickier then other physics specialisations and possibly slightly easier then some.

Course I didn't pay all that much attention to it cause I found it boring as all hell, but good luck!

I'd imagine it'd just be some multi-variable calculus and linear algebra.

Podge_irl

Maybe_Memories wrote: »

I'd imagine it'd just be some multi-variable calculus and linear algebra.

It also involved a lot of pulling equations of your arse by the lecturers...

Lisandro

Although I haven't done any studies in astrophysics, I have done some reading in that area, and it struck me as very mathematically intense - I encountered a lot of differential equations and algebra that took a while to digest in terms of understanding where it's going. Of course, if you do general relativity, then it becomes more complicated still, as it then involves a lot of differential geometry on top of everything else. The stuff I've read was challenging, but rewarding.

I have to make a subtle distinction between astrophysics and astronomy. Astronomy is very geo(astro)graphical, a qualitative examination of structures and patterns of extraterrestrial bodies and the behavioral traits they exhibit; astrophysics, meanwhile, is an in-depth, often mathematical investigation of motion and energy in outer space, and how they are determined by system variables.

I can see why some people would have a mistaken impression that astrophysics is the same as astronomy, but the two are fundamentally different; the stuff you do in astronomy in first year is very different from what you'll do in astrophysics (I know, once again, I haven't taken the course, but from anything I've seen anyway).

fungie

Having done the Astro courses since first year I can say that its pretty boring and the content doesnt change much from 1st to 3rd year. the first and second year course were basically identical while the third year was v similar just in a bit more detail.

Podge_irl

Lisandro wrote: »

] I have done some reading in that area, and it struck me as very mathematically intense - I encountered a lot of differential equations and algebra that took a while to digest in terms of understanding where it's going.].

It's significantly less mathematically intense then other areas of physics. To do any kind of physics to any real level you're going to have to be very comfortable with differential equations and algebra.

GR would however be one of the most mathematically tricky subjects to handle.

daveshep

Hi there, I have a question for bright young minds, concerning quantum mechanics, at the subatomic level matter seems to become unstable, electrons jumping here and there and so on, but our bodys are created by those subatom particles and so is everything else and we aren't jumping all over the universe, when we look at subatomic particles or energy like electrons which pulsate linear distortion caused the light to change position but the electron remains in its appropriate pattern, so visually it seems they are randomly

daveshep

And defying the basic laws that we know, the equations we extrpolate are really based on the linear distortion interference and not the movement of the electron, entanglement when 2 electrons touch each other and become polarized causing the ghost effect of being able to send each other information with no trace of communication is actually caused by using the linear distortion band frequency as a carrier, quantum mechanics equations predictions are really based on the degree of linear distortions effect on a object. If you throw an electron the linear distortion equations will give you the possibilities of the location of the electron but the electrons path stays the same.we have based quantum mechanics on the effects of linear distortion and not the actuall location of the electrons , we have mistaken the probabilities of where its at with thinking it can go to all those possible places.

PurpleFistMixer

Is this a Markov text generator?

daveshep

Why ?

PurpleFistMixer

It reads like one, evidently. I think you might need to revise your understanding of quantum mechanics, anyway.

daveshep

Linear expansion, larger particles overcome the distortion feild, quantum entaglement uses the distortion feild to exchange info.

daveshep

I wrote a earlier post explaining that cosmic linear distortion effects the weak signal of subatomic particles, the same distortion seti has to filter out when listening for alien contact and I mentioned that einstein said quantum mechanics was missing something very important and that's wvy the equations had so many variables.