Hi everyone,

I am a PhD student doing both experiments and computational physics ( mostly fluid dynamicswith Boltzmann equations) and leaning towards more computational day by day.

Currently I am using Julia, I find it pretty fast and easy to use.

Do you think switching to C or C++ will be a benefit? I am asking from a research, but also emplyment in industry point of view.

I discussed with many people, mostly from the DFT area, and most of them told me that Julia slowly will take up the lead for HPC code.

What.s your opinion on this?

Hello everyone, I’m currently in my senior year majoring in Electrical Engineering. I wanted to know how can I get a job or what type of jobs in optics/photonics and laser science that takes in people with bachelors? I’m planning to do grad school, but I’m going to do that later in a year or two after graduation. I do have research experience in laser plasma diagnostics and never had an internship before in the industry. I wanted to apply for PhD programs, but my gpa is low for that right now and I want to use my experience and solid LOR and SOP to make it up for it. I’ve had a hard time finding roles that pay decent for optical test engineer roles that doesn’t require a PhD or 5+ years of experience. Any options that I should look into? I’m geographically from Minnesota, so finding a photonics jobs here is very hard, I’m more than open to relocate (preferably in the coast (northeast, pacific or mountains).

This may be a silly question and you are okay to flame me.

How much has physics progressed over the last 70 years?

I am curious would someone with a masters in theoretical physics know more about physics than Oppenheimer

I am not saying they are smarter than Oppenheimer ( although some may? )

I get how mathematically divergence of curl and curl of divergence are 0 but why doesn't curl of a vector field diverge and why does gradient of a vector field not curl/swirl.

when i was 10-14 years old i was a curious child. i always wanted to become like feynman. i always my dads phone beside me at night and let the audiobook surely you are joking mr. feynman play for whole night until my turns it off and plugs the phone for charginng as it's battery becomes dead.

feynman's book inspired me in my childhood to question everything and try to explain it to 5 yyear kiddo. when i heard my teacher introducing to elctrons so called smallest particle by my teacher i was not satified how can electron we smallest.

cause it's round and according to me the sallest thing can only be a cube or brick like structure.

because if we take a electron that is a round ball then it must be made of somthing that is not round but lest say it is made for somthing that is round then the round thing that made the elctron must be made of somthing that is not round and so on... and in the end there should be only one thing left a tightly closed without any sapce in each other a cube or brick like structure and i called it cube-voide.

i know it doesn't make a sense but i was so happy by that discory that when the question came in my final exam "what is smallest thing that created all of the thing that we sees aroud us?" i ansered cube-voide and got 0. at the moment im 17 and doing cse majore and physics minor.

thats all sorry for poor grammar.

Hello, I am looking for an experienced person (and not an AI) to help me understand a phenomenon of second harmonic generation (GSH) by frequency doubling. My pump laser has unstable polarisation and, with an injected power of 9 W, I only get 0.8 W of converted power. However, with the same assembly but a different pump laser, I get 1.5W in a single pass. I am not sure of the impact of polarisation on this result. I measured a polarisation extinction rate (PER) of 14 dB, but as it is unstable, it is difficult to determine its influence. If anyone has any advice, a theoretical explanation would be welcome. 🙏

I realize that an object rotating in space is forcing charged particles to accelerate and thus generates electromagnetic waves, even if the loss of momentum is miniscule.

Do rotating objects, no matter how small of relatively little mass, generate gravitational waves? Or are there principles that limit the energy that can be carried away by gravity, the way electromagnetic waves are quantized?

I've always been interested in the natural sciences on some level, but I've never studied them formally nor read about them on any serious level. I've been reading philosophy (mostly Aristotle, Hegel, a bit of Kant, though I find him rather boring) for a while, but I've come to believe that I have a very one-sided education and that I'm ignorant about the natural sciences (physics, biology and so on). I'd like to remedy this fault by beginning to read about physics, which one could consider, along with mathematics, as a kind of foundation in science or something close to it.

I dislike philosophers who make grand philosophical claims, staking their 'systems' on one or another currently popular physics field. On a closer inspection, their work is often based on misunderstandings or contentious reasoning. Quantum physics is probably that field which is most referred to by all kinds of mystics, who try to find places for (in my view) naive Cartesian understandings of consciousness, god, etc.

Another thing that encourages me to try and understand this field is my disappointment with the humanities and the social sciences, much of which seems to be overly pretentious and made of straw. So, on some level, I detest my own background. I value physicists, chemists, medical researchers and biologists far more than social scientists, 'critical theorists' and followers of all kinds of fashionable 'theory'. One of the few fields in the humanities I do value is philosophy, although I see it as more of a historical foundation on which you build your understanding of other topics and that most issues within philosophy are completely irrelevant today, apart from logic and other such things.

What I want is to get not a popular science understanding of one phenomena or another, or a series of isolated facts, such curiosities. I'd like to get something deeper, which is understanding. To make it a bit more clear, what I want is to understand this field on a deeper level. I've no practical use for any of this, but I would like to understand the world and as much of it as possible. Like I said, I also have the feeling that my understanding is far too one-sided. I don't seek a career in this field.

What would one do to achieve this? So far, with other interests of mine, I simply have relied on textbooks (for learning languages, a big interest of mine), secondary literature (primarily for philosophy) and primary literature.

I'm posting here because this game is all about physics. As a game developer, I created this app to help with testing specific scenarios with in-game physics. In the process, I've discovered that this is almost a game in itself - and I find myself spending time just experimenting with what I can do with this pile of little objects (cubes or spheres). If this were a "real" game, I suppose it would be a physics sandbox where you drop lots of small objects into the environment and then apply various forces to them - creating mesmerizing displays and patterns.

Anyway, I'm just trying to find out if anyone would play something like this.

What impact will ai have on physics researchers?? I'm asking this as a 12th grade student who is currently planning to be a physics major and eventually do a phd in it. I want to become a physicist and don't want to end up jobless bcuz of ai after so many years of studying

It’s a flashlight shining on fog, pics on iPhone 17. Why are the droplets linear?

For someone who is a statistics major

I was thinking about this laying in bed at 1am, in space, how far could a radar system theoretically detect somthing like a planet or rock or somthing? Like if theres nothing to stop the signal all i can think of to stop it is how long the return signal would take?