Hello everyone.

Someone near me is selling the books that are in the picture for good prices. I find it really difficult to make sense of which of these are good and which aren't. I'm going into my 3rd year of my bachelor's, so it is still pretty broad and I would think at least most of these topics would be of interest (maybe except the music one). I'm not looking for super complicated math heavy books full of proofs, but rather aim to learn and understand the subjects as someone without a crazy math background.

Basically, if anyone here recognizes anything as being either good or bad then I would love to hear it.

Thanks in advance! :-)

Here’s a sped-up snippet I put together on some differences between classical and quantum computing, things like no-cloning, fan-out vs entanglement, measurement and Shannon entropy vs the Holevo bound.

This short clip has no audio (the full explanation was too long), but there’s a full version with narration and context... I’ll leave that in the comments for anyone interested. Feedback is most welcome!

Il

I’ve narrowed it down to option (a) and (c), since magnetic fields can’t do work and heating the filament would give energy statistically to the electrons. I can’t quite figure out what the key difference between option (a) and (c) is, the correct answer is (a).

I study CS in Uni, but am unable to add on a physics majors due to the courses having some conflict. I am, however, able to take a joint major in a math degree. The three main options I was looking at was: - Combinatorics and Optimization - Pure Math - Applied Math

I will definitely be able to compete one, and might even be able to complete two without delaying my graduation. I was just wondering what two majors you guys would chose that would supplement my physics learning the most.

My friend sent me this question as it had stumped him. I think the whole question is quite bad in my opinion, for the reasons below. This is my reply to his questions, so may be a bit disconnected from this paragraph. This question's purpose is to give home better help than I can and also further my Physics knowledge.

Sorry for his scribbles, I think it's readable enough.

My comments:

I'm pretty sure that question is bull****, you were correct to be stumped. part I) For the arrow question, I'm pretty sure the electron goes from X to the transparent conduction layer above it, since photoelectrons would escape the surface of the material. However, metals aren't insulators, so that may have confused you. Also, the photoelectric effect isn't observed in insulators commonly as they lack free electrons... this question is downright stupid and wouldn't actually help you at all in my opinion

part ii) Basically, to find the current in the circuit would require you to know the number of photons incident per second, as the photoelectric effect is a one to one interaction between photon and electron, and the number of photons incident per second, would depend on the intensity of the helium-neon laser, not the frequency of light emitted, which is what the question provides... it's a bad question.

Please let me know if my understanding is correct or not and an explanation to complement it would be greatly appreciated. Just wanted a second opinion I guess. Thank you.

Hi folks,

I’ve been lurking around in this sub for a while and based on general discourse, I’ve come to realise that many physics students end up in industry related jobs.

A burning question in my mind is whether this is mainly due to the difficulty of getting a decent academic position in physics - is it that difficult to make an academic career from physics?

I mainly ask this because I’m at a personal cross-roads of sorts. I graduated with an integrated masters in physics and have a bit of research experience with observational astronomy. Post my masters, I was forced to do an MBA and am currently employed at a rather high paying job although I don’t exactly like my work (im just 8 months in so im not too far into the organisation yet)

My passion has always been academia and physics and I’m planning on applying for a PhD/masters next year, but before I take the plunge I wanted to hear a few opinions on whether this plan sounds “feasible” or if I’m just holding onto a pipe dream.

I’d appreciate your thoughts!

Hello, not sure if this is the right place to ask but I recently started a job that I had to relocate to the middle of nowhere. I still have some time in my GI Bill and I figured I would use it and study another field I was interested in. I was thinking of doing online college as I'd rather not have to travel another 3 hours to take a class. The only online colleges I found were for ASU and Liberty University. Is there any others you would recommend or are those two good enough?

Hi! I am going to study electronics and electrical engineering this year, but I have gaps in chemistry. I don't really know how to study it. I mean in physics you can understand core concepts and use them to come up with formulas or models. But in chemistry there seem to be too many exceptions and you need to cram a lot. Am I wrong and I just didn't pay enough attention in school or is it really how you study it? And another question: how much is there chemistry in physics degrees (especially in my)? Is it enough to have only vivid school knowedges while studying it in university?

Hi, I'm starting physics soon and I will get a computer for studying with high battery duration (no dedicated graphics, and nit very powerfull, and as it's applicated physics mixed with a littel bit of AI, programming, machine learning and big data, so I think maybe it's a good idea to get a good computer, like a gaming one because I could be able to use AI in home servers, and I like simulations of everything, where chatgpt told me that a normal computer for university will not be enough, would I need a good computer or the low power university computer will be enough?, I can't get a gaming pc for university, it's powerfull, but it don't have enough battery and I don't want to be taking care always of the battery.

Hi Guys!

Have you been looking for a fun team-based physics competition to partake in? Do you love astronomy and astrophysics? Are you extremely depressed that OPhO has ended and looking for something to fill that void? Sign up for OAAO!

OAAO is an completely free and online astrophysics olympiad open to middle schoolers and high schoolers! With 2 rounds, open and invitational, you can apply the concepts you've learned to questions covering Stellar Physics, Cosmology, Celestial Mechanics, Spherical Astronomy, and more! Join the Astro Olympiad Server if you want to participate!

If you want more info, send me a dm and I can provide you with more detailed info and the registration form! You can also access our website through the Astrophysics Olympiad Discord Server I've linked below!

Try to find a team of up to 3 to register for the competition with. Max team size is 3, but you don't need another team member to participate!

https://discord.gg/ysEBA5KX4q

My general physics I and II textbook had over 60 questions per chapter, but I am now taking an intro to astrophysics course, and now each chapter has 3-10 questions. I don't know how I'm supposed to study and grasp the material with barely any practice problems.

I tried posting the same question to the astrophysics subreddit, but it wasn't very useful.

Hi r/PhysicsStudents,

I’ve been working on an alternative interpretation of time in relativity, and I’d like your thoughts.

The idea is to keep Einstein’s math and experimental predictions, but reframe the ontology of time. • True Time: the proper time of an event, recorded by a clock co-located with the event. • Perceived Time: what an observer measures, delayed and distorted by distance, light speed, and motion. • Altered Time: the gap between the two.

In this framework: • Events really do happen at fixed times (their own “true time”), regardless of observers. • Observers disagree only because of distorted perception. • A “third clock” at or near the event provides the best anchor to reality. • Simultaneity still exists in principle, though we can’t measure it exactly across distance.

This is essentially a neo-Lorentzian interpretation: relativity is still correct, but simultaneity and universal time exist “behind the scenes.”

Example: GPS. • Einstein: satellite clocks actually tick faster/slower. • My framework: each clock has its own true time, but differences are altered time we correct. • Both predict the same 38 μs/day correction, but the interpretation differs.

Question for discussion: • Is this framework internally consistent with relativity? • Does it offer any value, or is it just metaphysical decoration? • Are there quantum/relativistic scenarios (e.g., causal order experiments) where this hidden universal time is impossible?

Would love critique — tear it apart, refine it, or point me to where this has already been formalized.

title. I’m a current senior in hs who’s considering, well.. majoring in physics. But job market is kinda cooked rn and I’m not sure of the career options for people going into that field. But I will most likely do engineering or physics for sure. So, is it worth it considering this?

i barely study in school. i study 2 days before an exam and do better than average so that ego has gotten to me. regardless, when i do study physics, i feel more euphoria than when studying other subjects. i feel happier doing it- even for those brief 2 days. seeing many posts however on the employability of physics majors and the immense difficulty of doing the degree is making me doubt my own relative passion for physics. i don’t know what todo or think, i have to start applying for college in a few months and i’m doubting my own interests. i value my career and pay a lot too which is what is mostly making me doubt my decision to study and pursue a physics degree. people who’ve felt the same or just people who can help, please let me know what to do to figure it out

I am taking a quantum mechanics class this fall and the prof has repeatedly said that our linear algebra needs to be strong. I took linalg 3 years ago and got a C or B, definitely not strong in it. I decided to crash course this week so I can be on a better footing this semester. I'm currently working through the Steven Leon textbook which I used in my old class and am planning on watching through as many Gilbert Strang lectures as I can. Are there any additional resources that anyone has that would be good for specifically applying linalg to quantum? Thanks!

I'm wondering if I should drop my 100-level physics course and switch to the statistics program before the fall semester begins. There are a few reasons for this. The first is that I think a statistics bachelor's is more valuable in the current job market, which is important because I'm not sure if I'll double major or go to graduate school. The second reason is that I think studying statistics first will better equip me to succeed in physics because my mathematical skills are a bit lacking at the moment. I got a C in my first level-100 physics course, primarily because my calculus skills were poor. The most advanced math I've taken so far is Calc I.

I should also mention that my physics curriculum requires no math courses. It's all physics. They just expect students to have the necessary math background to get through it all. So, earning a bachelor's in statistics and then deciding later to possibly double major in physics sounds like a better plan of attack. What do you think?

I'm a sophomore currently taking Physics 1 and Calc BC in school, but I won't be finished with my Physics course by the time the f=ma exam takes place. I was hoping to self study the course myself but I'm not sure where to start. I heard HRK and Morin are really helpful but they're too advanced for me. My Physics 1 class uses College Physics by Steward, Freedman, Ruskell, Keston, but I've never seen it mentioned before so I'm not sure if it's good. What is the recommended algebra-based mechanics textbook for f=ma prep?

I'm open to other ideas too --like courses or lectures. Any other general advice is welcomed too. I'm currently thinking of self studying Physics 1 and then doing a bunch of practice problems, but I'm just not sure where to start. Would really appreciate any help!

Why does virtual image is formed because if the rays arent actually meeting then why does it appears to meet what is the phenomena behind it. My question might be unclear to you because i am not able to express it completely but please answer me in the best way you can.

We’re assigned Griffith’s Electrodynamics but I’m not liking it. We have Feynman Lectures Vol.2 as reference book. Should I choose that one or any suggestions for books preferably by Indian authors?

During sem all I was doing was studying Griffiths and I did watch some lectures for electromagnetism and even for Mathematical Physics II i just watch lectures passively and of course never touched a single question. i didn't even like solve for example legendry eqn...just from lecture i had a rough idea how to do it. 2nd sem also got rushed. Then during exams they actually gave us some good gaps. Like before my Mathematical Physics exam I had a 5-day gap. At least I should have done it then but no, i ended up wasting the whole gap .

How do you guys do stuff? Do you already study/practiced so much that u have to do minimal during exam?how many hours do you give each day to problem solving ? Sorry for the silly question

Is a masters a good stepping stone to a top tier phd program?

Im transferring into a state school from community college as a junior and am now seriously considering grad school options. Ideally i’d like to get into a top tier Phd program but fear my no research experience is heavily weighing down my application.

-4.0 gpa -No research experience whatsoever -1 yr of experience as a physics/math tutor at college lvl

Also, I dont get fafsa so tuitions out of pocket :P

In this case, would pursuing a masters be at all beneficial to landing a shot at a more prestigious university for my phd? …or would it just be a waste of monies?

And is GRE worth it?