Jump to content

dawsonbaker

Members
  • Posts

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Austin, Texas
  • Application Season
    2013 Spring
  • Program
    Optics (PhD)

dawsonbaker's Achievements

Decaf

Decaf (2/10)

0

Reputation

  1. The notion that applied physics is fundamentally different than physics is somewhat misplaced. The term 'applied' is really only to suggest that the new science being dealt with is going directly to something tangible like a technology. It is still about discovering new phenomena, maybe more in a technology-driven way, but to label it engineering is wrong. Plenty of applied physics PhD research revolves around understanding complex phenomena and bizarre physical effects in systems that are "well-understood". Good examples are imaging the nonlinear dynamics of car engines and feedback control in accelerators. Most of it looks like plain old physics research (e.g. condensed matter, biophysics, optics, quantum computing), and is just as theoretically intense as any other branch of the physical sciences. In every field, there are people pushing the theory to the limits. Perhaps there's less of a theory emphasis in applied physics, but the people there are physicists after all so take 'AP is engineering' with a huge grain of salt. The distinction, as far as I can see, is really only in emphasis. In an applied physics department, you're assumed to be studying physics to directly it to human problems and you're more likely to find research funded by industry. In a physics department, trying to understand nature is a sufficient reason to do anything (if you can get the funding).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use