Re: a master degree in physics
- From: xxein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 18 May 2005 18:28:13 -0700
PD wrote:
> tetanos wrote:
> > what kind of jobs a guy with such a diploma may expect, does he
need
> a
> > phd to get a proper scientist job in a laboratory or similar?
>
> To be a "proper scientist" you need a PhD. To be a technician, a
> masters would be fine. To be a science teacher in grades 7-12, that
> would be fine. But you can also get those latter jobs with a bachelor
> of science degree, so you might ask what good the couple of years for
> the masters would do for you, and it would be a good question.
Depends
> on how you spend your master's program. If you spend the bulk of it
in
> graduate classes and a tiny fraction doing research, it isn't worth
> much. If you spend the minimum required in classes and get to work
with
> a terrific research team, you'll have better references.
>
> With graduate work of any kind, it isn't "what" or "where" but "with
> whom".
>
> PD
>
> >
> > are any of you around here masters or phd in physics?
>
> PhD, though in principle you don't get a PhD in any discipline
(you're
> supposed to be an expert in everything).
>
> >
> > thanks
xxein: I can only wonder if Einstein's theory would be received at all
were he not a doctor. Was it not just the accepted tools that he used,
or could he have had the idea accepted without the 'tools to prove'?
Iow, HIS OWN grand idea, lacking any accepted 'formality of proof'
could have been hijacked by someone that 'spoke the language' so to
speak. He might have had the 'proof' in some sort of binary logic that
no one was familiar with. What then?
Wrt that, his idea still lacks a complete logic. Math applications of
imaginations are still not enough. We still draw a line between mass
and energy where there is none except what we imagine and categorize as
a pattern.
We do not see the Sun. We can only measure the energy effects and
patternize them into a 'sense' of reality. Yet, a reality exists that
may not fit one-to-one with the imaginary structure we have, into
which, we apply a math. Close in horseshoes means something different
compared to hand-grenades. I am alluding to changes of the structure
of the local energy state, an adiabacity to arrive at semi-permanent
local energy structures. Liken it to the math that produces large
changes to iterative results of self-similarity by changing only one
factor out of the whole of factors. I really don't expect anyone to
follow this line of reasoning until they contemplate what the universe
would present if the electron had twice its charge or measured EV.
I don't know what anyone thinks of Hawking, but he realized this as a
similar problem and said so much when he stated (loosely) that our
present theories can no longer be fudged - they need a revolutionary
change. But the only theories that CAN work better are ones that
better describe the objective-working nature of this universe. It is
up to us to get a better clue as to what this might be --- but hardly
from thinking in the past mode. It takes an imagination uncluttered by
past beliefs. Knowledge and science are supposed to be free from any
previously biased belief. Only history should remain - from which we
should recognize our mistakes.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: a master degree in physics
- From: PD
- Re: a master degree in physics
- References:
- a master degree in physics
- From: tetanos
- Re: a master degree in physics
- From: PD
- a master degree in physics
- Prev by Date: Re: Length "contraction" and time "dialation" bad language.
- Next by Date: Re: The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures
- Previous by thread: Re: a master degree in physics
- Next by thread: Re: a master degree in physics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
