Majoring Physics - my experience and ppl

[Ex-User (8886)]

This is post for ppl who wants to study or studied physics.

So I'm actually after 3rd year of Technical Physics at Wrocław University of Science and Technology. After 3 years I typed nearly everyone in my class (there are about 30 ppl), but I will say only about people's types I'm certain. I'll start from myself and INTP's I know

I don't really enjoy topics which I learn (there is a lot of spectroscopy, optics, solid state physics) and very little theoretical physics.
I have the worst grades you can imagine, but the other (female) INTP have average, and other (male) has very good grades, one of the best. So it's a matter more of personal interests than a type what is interesting for somebody. I want to be software engineer, the lady doesn't know, and the good grade guy wants to make PhD.

Next, 3 INTJ's. There are 2 males, who talk only with each other and don't communicate with anyone else, they have average grades, but in some courses they have the highest grades. So, they're really selective in learning. There is also one female, who has very bad grades (same as me), is incredible lazy and uninterested in everything that doesn't have math in it. They all don't want to tell me about their plans.

One ENTP, he has the best grades and spends all his time learning. He always asks a lot of questions and notes everything. Annoying person.

2 ISTPs, one is studying very hard, and the other is exact opposite, totally lazy bastard, even more than me. Interesting is that the studying one is mastering only one field and do little about other topics (he is interested in experimental optics).

4 ISTJs, one is same as ENTP - learns everything, the others learn to just pass exams. They're not rly interested in anything, they just learn for good grades.

1 ESTP, cool guy who do everything to just pass and learn nothing xD

Mixed variety feelers, every type of a feeler, even an INFJ. They are here probably by an accident...

What is interesting, there is no ENTJ or ESTJ. Probably they are more interested in applying physics to the world than researching it.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Now I want to cover all intelligent professors that I have courses with. I won't mention PhDs, because I think they're losers.

ESTJ - quantum physics, he is fascinated about quantum computing, very cold human, but incredibly intelligent and with great knowledge, the lecture was incredibly interesting, but the exam was very difficult to pass and he didn't care if people pass or not. Also he was rude to people.
INTP - same topics as above, what is interesting, he while a course I have he was 100% focused at what was the topic of the course, he never told anything personal or any story... When he was asked a question (it was a hypothetical question) he wasn't able to answer it, but next week he started classes with answering this question with a lot of math, saying sth than nobody understood except him xD.
INTJ - I had math courses with him, probably the best teacher I had, he was able to explain difficult ideas in very simple way. He is doing some computer science (not physicist)

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Finally, perspectives from my view
I think physics doesn't have anything interesting for now, there are big issues that needs to be solved, but none are able to do that, so the majority of scientists are average-intelligent people who brings minor new details to the physics knowledge. I can guarantee you, there will be no big breakthrough in physics until both development of quantum computer and AI. And we will wait for that several dozen of years, if not hundreds.
So there is no big potential in majoring physics, currently it's good job for ISTJs, and similar detailed oriented people.

I was talking a lot about grades in my first comment, but I think the most intelligent guys are those with lower grades, they at least know what they learn is useless shit.

 

[Pyropyro]

Finally, perspectives from my view
I think physics doesn't have anything interesting for now, there are big issues that needs to be solved, but none are able to do that, so the majority of scientists are average-intelligent people who brings minor new details to the physics knowledge. I can guarantee you, there will be no big breakthrough in physics until both development of quantum computer and AI. And we will wait for that several dozen of years, if not hundreds.
So there is no big potential in majoring physics, currently it's good job for ISTJs, and similar detailed oriented people.

I was talking a lot about grades in my first comment, but I think the most intelligent guys are those with lower grades, they at least know what they learn is useless shit.

*Checks latest local physics journal abstracts*

Yep, I think it's more about mingling physics research with other fields rather than something big. Seems that they are mostly working with semicon, agri, education and marine sciences.

No idea on your area but physicists have a Mean annual wage of $123,080 in the US. According to the wiki the annual US real median personal income is at $31,099 in 2016. With a job outlook of 14% (vs the average of 7%), the field looks good.

 

[Minuend]

Is there even a lot of room to do "big picture" studies or form new hypothesis/ theories in various sciences? Sometimes I get the impression most modern day science is incredibly specialized to where scientists basically do research on how this one gene expresses itself in this one type of situation. There's so much information it's difficult to do much else.

Though, I'm not a researcher, so I wouldn't know. Do you guys think big picture thinkers still have a central place in physics? Definition of big picture is a bit vague, I guess. Maybe this question too off topic? How do this specialized type of approach impact our understanding?

 

[Pyropyro]

Is there even a lot of room to do "big picture" studies or form new hypothesis/ theories in various sciences? Sometimes I get the impression most modern day science is incredibly specialized to where scientists basically do research on how this one gene expresses itself in this one type of situation. There's so much information it's difficult to do much else.

Though, I'm not a researcher, so I wouldn't know. Do you guys think big picture thinkers still have a central place in physics? Definition of big picture is a bit vague, I guess. Maybe this question too off topic? How do this specialized type of approach impact our understanding?

By "big picture? do you mean paradigm shifts? I don't think we have any paradigm shifts since the early 1900s.

Specialized research tends to make researchers go through their academic life with a narrow field of expertise. I mean, I can help you with biology and chemistry problems but I would be not a good fit for engineering related problems unless I'm the student.

 

[Minuend]

Well, it wouldn't always have to lead to huge paradigm shifts, guess I'm just curious as to how useful "big picture thinking" vs more of a detailed approach is.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I don't think you can expect to have any big paradigm shifts within physics in the near future, because the whole field was invented on top of a handful of paradigm shifts, which since have paved the way for a very successful method of understanding the physical world.

But either way, you have to deal with minutiae before you can understand how a framework can possibly be displaced by a new idea on a bigger scale. Without knowing the technicals, "big-picture thinking" amounts to just nonsense.

 

[Polaris]

Well, it wouldn't always have to lead to huge paradigm shifts, guess I'm just curious as to how useful "big picture thinking" vs more of a detailed approach is.

They are equally important. We often talk about the uselessness of various obscure aspects of science, but what is often forgotten is the potential utility of any data for future research. New theories are built on previous research and would not be possible without all the prior groundwork, which is often enormous. The problem with the inaccessibility of science literature is that is is not often obvious how important the narrow focus is for the bigger picture. Therefore, many aspects of science are dismissed because politics often dictates what should be studied and what shouldn't according to short term utility, and potential for immediate profit. Therefore, a lot of "useless" data remains hidden away and forgotten in countless journals and databases.

If it's not about curing cancer, developing a new theory of the properties of gravity, saving whales, or other familiar stuff, it is often deemed as uninteresting or useless. Politics also does a very good job of using emotional and financial appeals to skew people's perceptions of what is useful science.

Edit: Serac got in before me...

 

[Minuend]

Maybe the use of the phrase "big picture thinking" is wrong. I wasn't immediately thinking of huge stuff. Maybe something in between the smallest details and the hugest stuff. I don't see anything wrong/ bad with enjoying and focusing on details.

I guess what I'm curious about is the type of thinking processes the various work allows for. Which I'm not sure how to explain except how some types of work requires more of a "branching out" thinking process, while others require more of a filling in and focusing. Ofc, most probably require a bit of both

 

[Pyropyro]

I hope I understand this correctly Minuend but is this what you're talking about?

Details: what are the genes that are responsible for making the people deaf?

"Big picture": how can we screen for these genes during birth so that babies can have their hearing issues addressed as soon as possible?

If so, then research is usually done by labs individually which then release their detailed findings. Somewhere down the road, another group of researchers/legislators or will collate these findings and make their own assumptions on how to go about changing the world for the better.

 

[Minuend]

Yeah, I guess something like that. What I erroneously called big picture thinking would be themes like meta studies, figuring out how to figure out something or branch out to look for answers "outside", like the screen for genes example. It doesn't have to lead to a change in the world on a grand scale or prompt a paradigm shift per se. It doesn't have to be huge and impactful (detailed studies can be very impactful and lead to paradigm shifts within their area which impacts other areas as well.) . It's not about changing the world or be important, I was purely curious of the thought process aspect of things.